I've been doing this for a long time in Camino using the search field that is included with the browser. Doesn't include "I feel lucky," but so what? I'd rather have to click the mouse one more time than get sent to the wrong page because I wasn't so lucky.
Best thing about this is if you edit SearchURLList.plist, you can include any search engine you like in the search engine list. I think any Mozilla browser will work this way, and there are third party tools for Safari that allow the same thing. I click the search field and I can choose whether to send my search query to Amazon, Google, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, eBay, Erowid, whatever! Much more useful in my opinion than an "I feel lucky" button.
There's a way to do this without downloading software and it works with any browser (even lynx!!) Just send your browser to http://google.com and enter your keywords into the search window on that page. If you click "I feel lucky" the search engine will take you to the top result. Try it, it's fun!!
I don't see the contradiction in the statements you quote. My point is just that I don't think we should discourage anyone from voting. Ideally, everyone will participate meaningfully in the political process. I am not advocating encouraging people to vote and then not showing them the ballots or discouraging them from learning about who is running. I am simply advocating that in a government based on participation by the governed, we encourage all to participate. That does not just mean checking column a or b; it means forming an opinion and thinking about the stakes. Most people who vote do this, whether or not we like how they vote. The claim I was responding to was the elitist position that only smart people should be encouraged to vote (or only well-informed people or whatever). Who decides when someone is well informed? In my personal opinion, ANYONE who thinks Bush will win the war on terrorism is horribly ill-informed. Nevertheless I cannot and would not suggest that those people be discouraged from participating in the political process.
I don't think our positions are that far apart; I just don't like the idea of discouraging people because you think they're too dumb. Or ill-informed. I'm not defending "adding noise to the process" in any way; this was originally about responding to the claim that we should discourage people from voting who are ill informed. I don't know how you determine who is ill-informed. I am trying to put forth concrete suggestions about changing the process so that people become better informed.
You're just nitpicking -- whether you describe it as a democracy or republic, the fact is every citizen is (and should be) eligible to vote. The semantics are beside the point. Whether we vote for the president or vote for the electors, everyone still has the right to vote. Your argument that we should discourage people from voting is, I think, elitist and anti-democratic. I prefer to argue that we should encourage people to become more informed. I don't think we should discourage anyone. And I think it would be easy to encourage people to become more actively involved if we made voting easier. Having election day on a work day, when many companies will not let employees take time off to vote, is ludicrous. It should be a national holiday complete with civic activities and "teach-ins" near voting booths. This won't make everyone care but it certainly is better than discouraging people we think are too dumb to handle choosing between candidates.
I believe the War or Terrorism is the most important issue in this election and I trust Bush to win it
Where do these people come from? I don't like Kerry one bit either, but Bush has done nothing to show that he deserves any American's trust in the war on terrorism. News flash -- his unprovoked war in Iraq has actually increased terrorism. And while his actions in Afghanistan have helped destroy some of al-Qaeda's leadership, the organization has gotten more resilient as new leaders have emerged, and bin Laden has inspired hosts of other terrorist groups, and his ideology has gotten stronger. And don't forget that Bush gave al Qaeda a month to regroup and abandon bases and training camps that US officials knew the locations of because he wanted to invade Iraq first! These are just some basic military realities; never mind the long series of scandals and embarassments this administration has led us through. How is it, after 3 years of miserable failure, people still trust George W. Bush to win the war on terrorism?
Yes I know the US is a republic; that is not mutually exclusive with democracy, and in fact the country is often described as a democratic republic. The point I was making is that US election law does not and should not distinguish between voters too stupid or ill-informed to vote and those with the right to vote. You are arguing that we shouldn't encourage the ill-informed to vote -- I would suggest that instead we should encourage them to become more informed.
In some countries election day is a national holiday -- this will bring more people to the polls in the US, since a lot of people here would vote if they didn't have to work on election day. There are many ways to encourage people to vote without giving them free ipods and without making it a crime not to.
Your "right to bitch" is protected by the First Amendment whether you choose to vote or not. Also you just as easily could say the reverse -- you lose your right to bitch about the candidate you vote for because, well, you voted for him. Both arguments are stupid. Voting is not about your right to bitch; it is about your right to participate in your own governance. Both rights are precious in a free society.
However, had all of Florida's votes been counted, Gore would have won. This argument has been beaten to death, folks. The 2000 election is over. History will recognize it as the sham it was, but does it really matter? Bush is the US president, at least for a few more months. People need to focus energy on making sure election 2004 isn't an even bigger sham.
I'd rather be 1 out of 100 registered voters than 1 out of 100 million registered voters.
Well, then, why bother with elections at all? Why not just appoint you and your 100 friends monarchs-for-life? The whole point of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just the people you think are the smartest or the best informed.
I don't agree with the sentiment Carlin expresses about voting here at all (and I would suspect even he would argue differently today), but, as others point out, the Night of Long Knives took place two years after Hitler was elected in 1932. He was popular and he was elected in an election. "Full, free, democratic" may be an exaggeration, but one can say the same about U.S. elections. There's no question that Hitler's government was corrupt and evil, but it was a popular government, at least at first, and in fact there is evidence that Hitler's rule was even popular in some of the countries the Nazis invaded as well. Carlin's overall point -- that the popularity of a leader is no guarantee that he or she will be beneficial to society -- is quite reasonable, and Hitler is a good example of that.
First, this country was founded upon a healthy suspicion of the military institution, and even resisted having a standing army until relatively recently. I don't know the context of Clinton having said that - in fact, this is the first I've heard about it - but he did not act like he loathed the military in office. He sent troops to Kosovo, he had Iraq bombed every week or two, he sent troops to Haiti, and to a dozen other smaller conflicts. His only major embarrassment militarily was Somalia, which was a mess left to him by Bush I. He tried to take out OBL on several different occasions while most republicans were still longing to keep fighting the cold war. I'm no Clinton fan but this perception of him as anti-military is offbase, even though it is a wildly popular theory among Republicans.
As for Bush, he's certainly responsible for far more members of the American military dying in an unnecessary war that was waged based on a pack of lies. He not only ditched military service himself, but for almost a year after starting the Iraq war he refused to visit the families of soldiers who died in his war. He's been slashing benefits to Veterans, and he even took money that several US veterans had won in a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein for stuff that happened during Desert Storm -- the money should have been paid to the vets and their families, and Bush instead diverted it to the Iraqi "reconstruction." Bush has been slapping the face of American troops and veterans over and over again. It is disgraceful and insulting to those who risk their lives to serve their country. His attempt to paint Kerry as a wimp is a further slap in the face to everyone who has ever served in the military.
There's a difference between imposition and advocacy. People can make (and have made) the case for free software in places where they have influence. They don't have to cram these ideas down anyone's throats; gradual acceptance will come when the software lives up to the advocacy.
So what you're saying is, in a conservative state like New Jersey, you have 2 kinds of socialist insurance, whereas here in the People's Republic of Southern California I can't even find one? Where is the justice??!!
Slashdot Mirror
Best thing about this is if you edit SearchURLList.plist, you can include any search engine you like in the search engine list. I think any Mozilla browser will work this way, and there are third party tools for Safari that allow the same thing. I click the search field and I can choose whether to send my search query to Amazon, Google, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, eBay, Erowid, whatever! Much more useful in my opinion than an "I feel lucky" button.
There's a way to do this without downloading software and it works with any browser (even lynx!!) Just send your browser to http://google.com and enter your keywords into the search window on that page. If you click "I feel lucky" the search engine will take you to the top result. Try it, it's fun!!
I don't see the contradiction in the statements you quote. My point is just that I don't think we should discourage anyone from voting. Ideally, everyone will participate meaningfully in the political process. I am not advocating encouraging people to vote and then not showing them the ballots or discouraging them from learning about who is running. I am simply advocating that in a government based on participation by the governed, we encourage all to participate. That does not just mean checking column a or b; it means forming an opinion and thinking about the stakes. Most people who vote do this, whether or not we like how they vote. The claim I was responding to was the elitist position that only smart people should be encouraged to vote (or only well-informed people or whatever). Who decides when someone is well informed? In my personal opinion, ANYONE who thinks Bush will win the war on terrorism is horribly ill-informed. Nevertheless I cannot and would not suggest that those people be discouraged from participating in the political process.
I don't think our positions are that far apart; I just don't like the idea of discouraging people because you think they're too dumb. Or ill-informed. I'm not defending "adding noise to the process" in any way; this was originally about responding to the claim that we should discourage people from voting who are ill informed. I don't know how you determine who is ill-informed. I am trying to put forth concrete suggestions about changing the process so that people become better informed.
You're just nitpicking -- whether you describe it as a democracy or republic, the fact is every citizen is (and should be) eligible to vote. The semantics are beside the point. Whether we vote for the president or vote for the electors, everyone still has the right to vote. Your argument that we should discourage people from voting is, I think, elitist and anti-democratic. I prefer to argue that we should encourage people to become more informed. I don't think we should discourage anyone. And I think it would be easy to encourage people to become more actively involved if we made voting easier. Having election day on a work day, when many companies will not let employees take time off to vote, is ludicrous. It should be a national holiday complete with civic activities and "teach-ins" near voting booths. This won't make everyone care but it certainly is better than discouraging people we think are too dumb to handle choosing between candidates.
;^)
Where do these people come from? I don't like Kerry one bit either, but Bush has done nothing to show that he deserves any American's trust in the war on terrorism. News flash -- his unprovoked war in Iraq has actually increased terrorism. And while his actions in Afghanistan have helped destroy some of al-Qaeda's leadership, the organization has gotten more resilient as new leaders have emerged, and bin Laden has inspired hosts of other terrorist groups, and his ideology has gotten stronger. And don't forget that Bush gave al Qaeda a month to regroup and abandon bases and training camps that US officials knew the locations of because he wanted to invade Iraq first! These are just some basic military realities; never mind the long series of scandals and embarassments this administration has led us through. How is it, after 3 years of miserable failure, people still trust George W. Bush to win the war on terrorism?
That's unpossible!
Yes I know the US is a republic; that is not mutually exclusive with democracy, and in fact the country is often described as a democratic republic. The point I was making is that US election law does not and should not distinguish between voters too stupid or ill-informed to vote and those with the right to vote. You are arguing that we shouldn't encourage the ill-informed to vote -- I would suggest that instead we should encourage them to become more informed.
As long as you write it using emacs.
What makes you think he's good at proofs?
In some countries election day is a national holiday -- this will bring more people to the polls in the US, since a lot of people here would vote if they didn't have to work on election day. There are many ways to encourage people to vote without giving them free ipods and without making it a crime not to.
Your "right to bitch" is protected by the First Amendment whether you choose to vote or not. Also you just as easily could say the reverse -- you lose your right to bitch about the candidate you vote for because, well, you voted for him. Both arguments are stupid. Voting is not about your right to bitch; it is about your right to participate in your own governance. Both rights are precious in a free society.
However, had all of Florida's votes been counted, Gore would have won. This argument has been beaten to death, folks. The 2000 election is over. History will recognize it as the sham it was, but does it really matter? Bush is the US president, at least for a few more months. People need to focus energy on making sure election 2004 isn't an even bigger sham.
Well, then, why bother with elections at all? Why not just appoint you and your 100 friends monarchs-for-life? The whole point of democracy is that everybody gets to vote, not just the people you think are the smartest or the best informed.
I don't agree with the sentiment Carlin expresses about voting here at all (and I would suspect even he would argue differently today), but, as others point out, the Night of Long Knives took place two years after Hitler was elected in 1932. He was popular and he was elected in an election. "Full, free, democratic" may be an exaggeration, but one can say the same about U.S. elections. There's no question that Hitler's government was corrupt and evil, but it was a popular government, at least at first, and in fact there is evidence that Hitler's rule was even popular in some of the countries the Nazis invaded as well. Carlin's overall point -- that the popularity of a leader is no guarantee that he or she will be beneficial to society -- is quite reasonable, and Hitler is a good example of that.
Looks like someone already had this idea.
There's plenty of room at Gitmo.
You should really let us Americans show you how to do it right.
We slashdotted the entire universe. Way to go.
As for Bush, he's certainly responsible for far more members of the American military dying in an unnecessary war that was waged based on a pack of lies. He not only ditched military service himself, but for almost a year after starting the Iraq war he refused to visit the families of soldiers who died in his war. He's been slashing benefits to Veterans, and he even took money that several US veterans had won in a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein for stuff that happened during Desert Storm -- the money should have been paid to the vets and their families, and Bush instead diverted it to the Iraqi "reconstruction." Bush has been slapping the face of American troops and veterans over and over again. It is disgraceful and insulting to those who risk their lives to serve their country. His attempt to paint Kerry as a wimp is a further slap in the face to everyone who has ever served in the military.
There's a difference between imposition and advocacy. People can make (and have made) the case for free software in places where they have influence. They don't have to cram these ideas down anyone's throats; gradual acceptance will come when the software lives up to the advocacy.
Is that an unlicensed nuclear accellerator on your back, or are you just happy to see me?
So what you're saying is, in a conservative state like New Jersey, you have 2 kinds of socialist insurance, whereas here in the People's Republic of Southern California I can't even find one? Where is the justice??!!
"I, for one, welcome our new neighborhood overlords!"