Holy cow! Yeah, it's a right old mess right there. (You know it's coming...) However, a texan doesn't get to vote for 300+ candidates, only for the candidates in the district in which he/she lives. In the mexican state of Oaxaca, there are 280+ counties, so the local contests are 4-5 ballots, but the state tabulation would look very much like the link you provided.
In fact, in my hometown, people expecting to vote for X, Y or Z representative could not find him/her on the ballot, as the electoral districting had split my city in half, while the propaganda for both races were all over town. That was confusing, so I can only imagine the state of affairs in Oaxaca during election day.
Something I didn't expect, however, was how your link shows that US citizens get to vote for judiciary appointees. I did not know that. Finally, there are no such thing as 'proposition' ballots in Mexico.
There's a couple of points to be made about the mexican electoral process and about Mexico's 2006 election.
- First off, the process: 1. There is a separate paper ballot for each contest. In most states in 2006, it was 1 for president, 1 for senator and 1 for representative. There must have been a fourth and maybe even fifth paper ballot in some states, for mayor and governor. Accordingly, there are separate urns to deposit the corresponding paper ballot. 2. In each ballot, the candidate of choice is marked with an "X" in black crayon, then deposited in the corresponding urn. 3. The electoral team at the polling station, composed of one or two registered members of each contending party then empties the urns and sorts out the ballots. If a voter has mistakenly deposited his/her ballot in the wrong urn, the ballot is then placed in the proper group. 4. The ballots are then counted and the results are sent to the local Electoral Comission, where all polling stations are then tallied up and sent to the Federal Electoral Comission. 5. The Federal Electoral Comission tallies the electoral results via computer.
- Now, the points of contention: 1. The company that licensed the software to tally the electoral results is named Hildebrando, owned in Mexico by (ruling party presidential candidate) Felipe Calderon's brother-in-law! 2. In predominantly left-wing districts in central and southern Mexico, irregularities such as destroyed ballots and reports of 'sabotage' were reported on election day. 3. When a recount was put into effect a month later, it was a partial one.
- However: 1. The amount of noise made by both dead-heat political parties was unbelievable, a media war fueled by incredibly inflamed and entrenched tempers on both sides. There are many examples of deliberate misinformation perpetrated by both sides. It was by far the nastiest political campaign in Mexico's history. 2. International electoral supervisors declared Mexico's election to be transparent. Curiously, republicans will not allow these international organizacions to monitor US elections. 3. It WAS a dead-heat race. Both sides were ready to scream bloody murder at the drop of a hat. The official result ended up being pretty close to the last polls taken, somewhere around 0.3%. 4. The counting process was published on paper and in the official electoral website http://www.ife.org.mx/, for all to inspect, in a MUCH more open fashion than the Bush administration has been willing to do. Many independent analysts preoccupied with clean elections are satisfied with the data provided.
My opinion is this: I'm glad the 'political effervescence' and mudslinging is over, that the one party who should not have won (the PRI) did not win, and even though my candidate will not make it to Los Pinos (the mexican White House), I find that the major problem in mexican government right now is not the president, but Congress. Three parties in Congress makes for alliances by two parties to block out most proposals by the third party, so that little gets done. The Mexican Congress is hopelessly gridlocked.
I have always wondered why there is such a premium on "an original". Especially art.
It depends on the collector.
On the one hand, there's Peggy Guggenheim, who bought left and right from living artists, putting food on their table, getting drunk with them, making their name. She was buying Jackson Pollock before the guy invented action painting. Picasso, Francis Bacon, Giacometti, you name it. As far as collectors go, she's the all-time queen. Of course, it helped that she had true passion for art as well as a keen eye. The result is that the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars she paid for became tens or hundreds of millions, and they're increasing in value all the time. A gigantic bonus on her behalf is that because she bought directly from the living artist, there were no forgeries in her collection. Plus, she had a blast.
On the other hand, there's these anonymous buyers who in the eighties invaded the art world with a Wall Street mentality. In fact, I very much doubt that they even enjoy/exhibit these works in their homes, my guess is that they store the artwork in climate-controlled vaults. Cold and dispassionate, no positive effect on living artists. You buy a Van Gogh, a Klimt or a Monet because it is a hyped commodity, and of course it helps that the artists are dead.
One final thought: If I buy a Klimt for $100 million, am I expecting that another rich schmuck will buy it from me for $150 million in a couple of decades? I tell ya, truth is stranger than fiction.
"rare pokemon cards", "rare beenie babies" If I'd only hung on to that Make-A-Face Pez Dispenser from 1977, or that Raydeen Shogun Warrior with missile launchers for knuckles...
It's thought that such a material could have strange and useful properties.
Maybe a stable transuranic element will be one of the following examples, probably something more imaginative than what I could come up with: 1. A super-thin exoskeleton sheet for interstellar craft, protecting the travelers from cosmic rays and the like. 2. A superconducting medium at room temperature. 3. The key to develop and achieve full nanotechnology capabilities.
However, these elements are created through brute force (bombardment), a linear thing, and in these matters "X" never really marks the spot. Just a hunch, but I believe that future technological advances will continue to come from more subtle and practical avenues, such as ionization of elements readily accesible in nature, or alloys (exotic ceramics and the like).
Even if it's a fruitless endeavour, it still has to be done and taken to the end. Why? Because it is there, and that's always been good enough for mankind, and will continue to be so. I'd love to still be around when Untriseptium (137) is next on the hit list, as we'll be on the very doorstep of a purported impossibility in nature. It's gonna get weird, folks!
Jesus, it seems that one can't make a failed attempt at a joke without getting thrown eggs for it. This is, after all, Slashdot. If I insulted you by giving the impression of putting on airs, I apologize.
Armstrong has been a regular visitor to Baja, though, and he comes for the brant. Everything else was a flight of fancy, or maybe I should say fancypants.
Personally, I've grown to like "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", as if Armstrong is saying something deliberate and profound for future generations to assimilate, as if man is homo sapiens, while mankind are all the species of Earth, being collectively represented in Tranquility Base.
However, I'll be sure to ask Armstrong about it if I bump into him next January, since he comes to Baja to hunt siberian brant, which migrates here every winter. Maybe I can just leave a message to the bartender at the watering hole he visits when he's down here.
I'm not saying which bar it is, as the last thing he'll want is groupies hanging around. He was, after all, the most famous man on the planet before Michael Jackson told us to Beat It. In fact, I'm not even saying what town the bar is in, as even that would be too much of a giveaway.
Hmmm, I'm lacking context for the "preferred" here.
Sorry about that. From what I've read in different articles in various places, and sorry if I'm a little vague here, inhalers are widely acknowledged as the best option for delivering the cannabis effect without the cumulative damage that may occur from smoking it. Furthermore, ingested cannabis produces a plateau that is several hours long, which could be a potentially nightmarish experience to a subject in the midst of a paranoia attack, while inhaling produces a plateau of an hour at most. This is what I mean by "preferred".
I'm sorry, the correct answer was "mentat": A beowulf cluster of mentats.
Let's take it up a notch, shall we? A beowulf cluster of Tleilaxu Duncan Idahos!
Well, the doctors would like nice lil' pills with known dosages that can be scientifically studied.
Actually, inhalers are the preferred method of ingestion. Or more accurately, delivery device.
OK now, let's roll, Muad'ib. I, for one, welcome the Combine Honette Ober Advancer Mercantiles as our new overlords! In Soviet Arrakis, melánge drinks you! A Beowulf cluster of Bene Gesserit witches!
As a footnote, hemp was de-criminalized (or its' legal status was ignored) during WWII because raw materials to make rope, among other things, were running scarce. I'm sure I read somewhere that hemp oil was even used as an additive for airplane engine oil. As soon as WWII was over, it was back to business as usual and back to the dog house for hemp.
Actually, liberal economic and social policies work like a charm when they're not being sabotaged by economic and social conservatives. Take Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, to name a few. An explicit example: US conservatives insist that institutionalized medical care doesn't work, yet the US is the only industrialized country without it. A shared benefit smacks of handout to the conservatives, so that they will obfuscate the liberal pros while burying the conservative cons for it, and they've got the propaganda machine to do it. However, I'm of the opinion that an army of bums abusing the system to get their several thousand dollars' worth, drains the system much less than a platoon of corporations doing the same for hundreds of billions.
Economics: Conservatives defend corporate interests to the death. - One of the biggest crocks of the last quarter century, embraced by the far right and they refuse to let it go, is trickle down economics. From the moment that was first implemented, the divide between the haves and the have nots has widened. The number and percentage of have nots has increased considerably. Furthermore, people are working more for less pay. Real salaries have decreased while corporate profits have gone through the roof. - Debt. I think baby boomers were bought off with credit cards during the Reagan era and gradually drifted to the right. Most 'middle class' today are 2-3 paychecks (or a major disease) away from bankrupcy. This unhealthy state of affairs is the big unspoken secret that everybody shares and no one talks about. Everybody's wound up in an urgent sense of "money, money, money", and a sense of community can go jump off a cliff. The 'middle class' has become an uptight phantom in an SUV. - Big Oil, the darling of conservative economic policy, is also the vulnerable exposed innard. Take for example how 2-3 billion dollars are spent on Iraq daily (all together now - it's about the oil), while a few years back Bush announced how a paltry 500 million dollars were to be channeled to hydrogen fuel cell research, spread out over ten years. That's 500 million over ten years, sharply contrasting with 2-3 billion a day. That looks like throwing craps ten times in a row, and you need a seven or nine every single time.
If we talk about the natural evolution of policies, what I see is the current policies headed towards disaster, and then the benefited corporations will shuttle off their moneys elsewhere, having milked this cow dry.
However, a traditional liberal policy, such as a solid working class = solid middle class = the backbone of a nation's economy, is still the standard in the most stable industrialized nations in the world today.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact that's my point. It speaks volumes about a society in which one can show up and perform a non-vote as a form of protest. In fact, I would love to think that non-votes are also tabulated and presented statistically, for they are also a voice.
If you're sufficiently paranoid you can just create an informal vote by putting 1s in all the boxes... That is a great idea. Let me tell you why I'm interested in this. I happen to live in Mexico, and I voted this past July. I know some people who did not vote, as an act of protest. I was angry at them at first, but I've come to respect their decision. However, what still bugs me is the futility of their non-gesture, lost, as Roy in Blade Runner says, like tears in the rain.
Now, in Mexico we take it as a matter-of-fact that the government has for decades commited massive acts of electoral fraud. We hope this is changing, but the horrid electoral noise this year also makes us remember that we don't have the political maturity that Oz, Canada and many european countries have. But that's a story for another time. My point is that in all truthfullness, we have to work on the assumption that only a limited number of governments will refuse to exploit a blank ballot to their advantage.
Having now read the article, holy cow, an 83 day filibuster! I remember reading about Thurmond holding the fort for 24 hours straight, like Mr Smith Goes To Washington with a putrid soul. But 83 days of dissent by his gang? That one had slipped by me!
You don't actually need to vote for anyone - you can put the blank ballot in the box and go home.
While commendable when the only good option is "None Of The Above" Down Under, there are other countries where this is extremely dangerous for the democratic process. Certain parties in many countries will find it irresistible to fill in the ballots in the process of sorting and counting the ballot. A case in point would be Mexico, where the vote consists of crossing the candidate's country with a black crayon, one ballot for each public office under contest, then each ballot goes into the appropriate urn (again, one for each public office).
I did a little digging on Wikipedia, and came up with this:
Election Day in the United States is the day when polls most often open for the election of certain public officials. Election Day occurs on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November every year, which is always the Tuesday between November 2 and November 8, inclusively.
This rule was instituted by the U.S. Congress in 1845, and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November was chosen to keep the election day from falling on November 1, All Saints' Day, a Holy Day of Obligation for Roman Catholics. Tuesday was chosen to allow voters one day to travel to their polling place, as most residents at the time could not travel on Sunday because of church. The month of November was chosen because it was after the crops were harvested.
I think it's fair to say that all the reasons stated above for holding elections on a Tuesday, while stellar in their reasoning for the nineteenth century, are now obsolete. Read on...
Many social activists oppose this date, believing that it decreases voter turnout, since it is part of the workweek. Many advocate making election day a national holiday or allowing voters to cast their ballots over two or more days.
In response to this, many states have implemented early voting, which allows the voters to cast ballots, in many cases up to two weeks early. Also, all states have some kind of absentee ballot system. The state of Oregon, for example, performs all major elections through mail-in ballots that are sent to voters several weeks before Election Day.
Although measures have been taken in some places, clearly it's too little at this late stage of the game. If the american public wants to scare the pants off the Washington lobbyists, a good place to start would be to campaign for Election Saturdays. Ironically, it's something that will probably be decided on a Tuesday.
Yes, there was a faction within the Democratic Party, known as the Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond, that wanted segregation to remain in place. Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours, by himself in the spotlight, an unwinnable vote to maintain segregation. After his white supremacism was defeated in Congress, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party. Go figure...
How about an election where the choices aren't limited to far right or far left? Could we have some MODERATION and a helping of sense?
Depends on what you define as right or left. Both established parties have shifted considerably to the right in the last three decades. You look at many of the things Nixon did (including kick-starting the EPA), and if he were running against Bush, Karl Rove would succesfully smear Tricky Dicky as positively pinko. Likewise, Clinton de-regulated a bunch of industries (energy and broadcasting come to mind), an unthinkable move for a Democrat even in the times of Jimmy Carter. Here's another example: Labor unions are weaker than ever, the slide started with Reagan, did not stop with Clinton, and nobody seems to notice. With Bush, labor has taken a nosedive. Just last week, Delta Airlines got a court ruling allowing them to pay employee their pension funds for dimes on the dollar from what was originally promised, even while executives get to keep their golden parachutes. And I haven't heard a single Democrat talk about this.
One of the main tenets of the Democrats used to be: if you are employed, we will protect you, you will be middle class and your children will go to college. Now, the Democratic message seems to be: you're on your own.
There is no far left anymore, and hasn't been for a while. As things stand, what we have in politics is moderate (the new pinko), right and far right.
How did it get to this? My guess is that the almighty corporate lobbyist dollar is to blame. Almost everyone has been corrupted equally. And those few who haven't may last one term while being nervously shunned and dismissed as 'fringe dwellers'.
Maybe voting in at least presidental elections should be required to maintain your US citizenship.
Or how about increasing voter turnout using the carrot instead of the rod:
- Change Election Day from Tuesday to Saturday. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that elections must be held on Tuesday, and I'm sure many people agree it's not such a great day to do it. - Give preferential treatment to responsible citizens when applying for a passport, driver's licence, etc. All you have to do is show your ID that proves you have voted in a number of consecutive elections. - Discounts on the previous things for citizens who have voted in even more consecutive elections, while throwing in discounts for public transport when you show your special ID...hey, maybe even a parking fine amnesty!
I think these would be pragmatic steps to increase voter turnout. However, with the way things are, the Powers That Be intend on keeping the number low, because if you change the status quo, lobbyists and the corporations they represent lose the upper hand. The current levels of contributions that lobbyists hand out are the difference between winning and losing an election, channeled towards the few undecided people who will vote in battleground states. Their influence is exactly as tremendous as american electoral apathy. They have this down to a science and all of Washington knows it. However, if you increase voter turnout, their contributions will be diluted, which is to say, their power will be diminished. They would no longer be able to make or break presidents! Or governors, or congressmen, etc.
So I don't think any rods or carrots will appear in the foreseeable future.
In case you fly Virgin and are lucky enough to get a seat with a power source for your iBook or PowerBook, keep this in mind: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/13/ 1710258 For the life of me, I cannot grasp that the hell is in the minds of these corporate lackeys. Will they ever realize that assembling things on the cheap not only endangers lives, but ends up costing tons more in the long run, by way of recalls, damage control and alienated customers?
That said, now that Apple is doing a massive recall, the very least they should do is give out some sort of certificate that the battery has been replaced with a newer, safer model. These guys (Apple and Virgin) should be in talks about it.
If all else fails, at least you can kick back in your incredibly cramped Airbus seat, sipping from a can of nasty Virgin Cola, playing quarter-of-a-century-old Nintendo games, all the while trying to scrape the breakfast muffin dough that has turned to glue in the roof of your mouth. On a more sinister note, maybe Richard Branson has his eye on the battery market? Virgin Batteries, "The Life Of Your Laptop".
Check out Robert Mugabe's presence for the government (cough) of Zimbabwe
This baby is particularly outstanding. It froze and crashed my Firefox, running on 1GB of RAM and a 2GHz processor. How do you get a website to do that?!! And how did you find this beauty? I'm impressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy cow! Yeah, it's a right old mess right there. (You know it's coming...) However, a texan doesn't get to vote for 300+ candidates, only for the candidates in the district in which he/she lives. In the mexican state of Oaxaca, there are 280+ counties, so the local contests are 4-5 ballots, but the state tabulation would look very much like the link you provided.
In fact, in my hometown, people expecting to vote for X, Y or Z representative could not find him/her on the ballot, as the electoral districting had split my city in half, while the propaganda for both races were all over town. That was confusing, so I can only imagine the state of affairs in Oaxaca during election day.
Something I didn't expect, however, was how your link shows that US citizens get to vote for judiciary appointees. I did not know that. Finally, there are no such thing as 'proposition' ballots in Mexico.
There's a couple of points to be made about the mexican electoral process and about Mexico's 2006 election.
- First off, the process:
1. There is a separate paper ballot for each contest. In most states in 2006, it was 1 for president, 1 for senator and 1 for representative. There must have been a fourth and maybe even fifth paper ballot in some states, for mayor and governor. Accordingly, there are separate urns to deposit the corresponding paper ballot.
2. In each ballot, the candidate of choice is marked with an "X" in black crayon, then deposited in the corresponding urn.
3. The electoral team at the polling station, composed of one or two registered members of each contending party then empties the urns and sorts out the ballots. If a voter has mistakenly deposited his/her ballot in the wrong urn, the ballot is then placed in the proper group.
4. The ballots are then counted and the results are sent to the local Electoral Comission, where all polling stations are then tallied up and sent to the Federal Electoral Comission.
5. The Federal Electoral Comission tallies the electoral results via computer.
- Now, the points of contention:
1. The company that licensed the software to tally the electoral results is named Hildebrando, owned in Mexico by (ruling party presidential candidate) Felipe Calderon's brother-in-law!
2. In predominantly left-wing districts in central and southern Mexico, irregularities such as destroyed ballots and reports of 'sabotage' were reported on election day.
3. When a recount was put into effect a month later, it was a partial one.
- However:
1. The amount of noise made by both dead-heat political parties was unbelievable, a media war fueled by incredibly inflamed and entrenched tempers on both sides. There are many examples of deliberate misinformation perpetrated by both sides. It was by far the nastiest political campaign in Mexico's history.
2. International electoral supervisors declared Mexico's election to be transparent. Curiously, republicans will not allow these international organizacions to monitor US elections.
3. It WAS a dead-heat race. Both sides were ready to scream bloody murder at the drop of a hat. The official result ended up being pretty close to the last polls taken, somewhere around 0.3%.
4. The counting process was published on paper and in the official electoral website http://www.ife.org.mx/, for all to inspect, in a MUCH more open fashion than the Bush administration has been willing to do. Many independent analysts preoccupied with clean elections are satisfied with the data provided.
My opinion is this: I'm glad the 'political effervescence' and mudslinging is over, that the one party who should not have won (the PRI) did not win, and even though my candidate will not make it to Los Pinos (the mexican White House), I find that the major problem in mexican government right now is not the president, but Congress. Three parties in Congress makes for alliances by two parties to block out most proposals by the third party, so that little gets done. The Mexican Congress is hopelessly gridlocked.
I have always wondered why there is such a premium on "an original". Especially art.
It depends on the collector.
On the one hand, there's Peggy Guggenheim, who bought left and right from living artists, putting food on their table, getting drunk with them, making their name. She was buying Jackson Pollock before the guy invented action painting. Picasso, Francis Bacon, Giacometti, you name it. As far as collectors go, she's the all-time queen. Of course, it helped that she had true passion for art as well as a keen eye. The result is that the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars she paid for became tens or hundreds of millions, and they're increasing in value all the time. A gigantic bonus on her behalf is that because she bought directly from the living artist, there were no forgeries in her collection. Plus, she had a blast.
On the other hand, there's these anonymous buyers who in the eighties invaded the art world with a Wall Street mentality. In fact, I very much doubt that they even enjoy/exhibit these works in their homes, my guess is that they store the artwork in climate-controlled vaults. Cold and dispassionate, no positive effect on living artists. You buy a Van Gogh, a Klimt or a Monet because it is a hyped commodity, and of course it helps that the artists are dead.
One final thought: If I buy a Klimt for $100 million, am I expecting that another rich schmuck will buy it from me for $150 million in a couple of decades? I tell ya, truth is stranger than fiction.
"rare pokemon cards", "rare beenie babies"
If I'd only hung on to that Make-A-Face Pez Dispenser from 1977, or that Raydeen Shogun Warrior with missile launchers for knuckles...
It's thought that such a material could have strange and useful properties.
Maybe a stable transuranic element will be one of the following examples, probably something more imaginative than what I could come up with:
1. A super-thin exoskeleton sheet for interstellar craft, protecting the travelers from cosmic rays and the like.
2. A superconducting medium at room temperature.
3. The key to develop and achieve full nanotechnology capabilities.
However, these elements are created through brute force (bombardment), a linear thing, and in these matters "X" never really marks the spot. Just a hunch, but I believe that future technological advances will continue to come from more subtle and practical avenues, such as ionization of elements readily accesible in nature, or alloys (exotic ceramics and the like).
Even if it's a fruitless endeavour, it still has to be done and taken to the end. Why? Because it is there, and that's always been good enough for mankind, and will continue to be so. I'd love to still be around when Untriseptium (137) is next on the hit list, as we'll be on the very doorstep of a purported impossibility in nature. It's gonna get weird, folks!
Transuranic element #1: "Hey! I just lost an electron!"
Transuranic element #2: "Are you sure?"
Transuranic element #1: "Yep, I'm positive"
Googleplexium.
I think you're quintessentially right, but the film was really not THAT good.
Consider the fact that the fifth element is actually Boron.
Jesus, it seems that one can't make a failed attempt at a joke without getting thrown eggs for it. This is, after all, Slashdot.
If I insulted you by giving the impression of putting on airs, I apologize.
Armstrong has been a regular visitor to Baja, though, and he comes for the brant. Everything else was a flight of fancy, or maybe I should say fancypants.
Personally, I've grown to like "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", as if Armstrong is saying something deliberate and profound for future generations to assimilate, as if man is homo sapiens, while mankind are all the species of Earth, being collectively represented in Tranquility Base.
However, I'll be sure to ask Armstrong about it if I bump into him next January, since he comes to Baja to hunt siberian brant, which migrates here every winter. Maybe I can just leave a message to the bartender at the watering hole he visits when he's down here.
I'm not saying which bar it is, as the last thing he'll want is groupies hanging around. He was, after all, the most famous man on the planet before Michael Jackson told us to Beat It. In fact, I'm not even saying what town the bar is in, as even that would be too much of a giveaway.
Hmmm, I'm lacking context for the "preferred" here.
Sorry about that. From what I've read in different articles in various places, and sorry if I'm a little vague here, inhalers are widely acknowledged as the best option for delivering the cannabis effect without the cumulative damage that may occur from smoking it. Furthermore, ingested cannabis produces a plateau that is several hours long, which could be a potentially nightmarish experience to a subject in the midst of a paranoia attack, while inhaling produces a plateau of an hour at most. This is what I mean by "preferred".
I'm sorry, the correct answer was "mentat": A beowulf cluster of mentats.
Let's take it up a notch, shall we? A beowulf cluster of Tleilaxu Duncan Idahos!
Cue the Dune references of spice here.
Not so fast there, cowboy.
Well, the doctors would like nice lil' pills with known dosages that can be scientifically studied.
Actually, inhalers are the preferred method of ingestion. Or more accurately, delivery device.
OK now, let's roll, Muad'ib.
I, for one, welcome the Combine Honette Ober Advancer Mercantiles as our new overlords!
In Soviet Arrakis, melánge drinks you!
A Beowulf cluster of Bene Gesserit witches!
As a footnote, hemp was de-criminalized (or its' legal status was ignored) during WWII because raw materials to make rope, among other things, were running scarce. I'm sure I read somewhere that hemp oil was even used as an additive for airplane engine oil. As soon as WWII was over, it was back to business as usual and back to the dog house for hemp.
See, I think he's hangin' out on and island somewhere. With Kurt Cobain. And Elvis and John Lennon.
Dude, you forgot to mention Jim Morrison, Andy Kaufmann and Bruce Lee.
Actually, liberal economic and social policies work like a charm when they're not being sabotaged by economic and social conservatives. Take Canada, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, to name a few. An explicit example: US conservatives insist that institutionalized medical care doesn't work, yet the US is the only industrialized country without it. A shared benefit smacks of handout to the conservatives, so that they will obfuscate the liberal pros while burying the conservative cons for it, and they've got the propaganda machine to do it. However, I'm of the opinion that an army of bums abusing the system to get their several thousand dollars' worth, drains the system much less than a platoon of corporations doing the same for hundreds of billions.
Economics: Conservatives defend corporate interests to the death.
- One of the biggest crocks of the last quarter century, embraced by the far right and they refuse to let it go, is trickle down economics. From the moment that was first implemented, the divide between the haves and the have nots has widened. The number and percentage of have nots has increased considerably. Furthermore, people are working more for less pay. Real salaries have decreased while corporate profits have gone through the roof.
- Debt. I think baby boomers were bought off with credit cards during the Reagan era and gradually drifted to the right. Most 'middle class' today are 2-3 paychecks (or a major disease) away from bankrupcy. This unhealthy state of affairs is the big unspoken secret that everybody shares and no one talks about. Everybody's wound up in an urgent sense of "money, money, money", and a sense of community can go jump off a cliff. The 'middle class' has become an uptight phantom in an SUV.
- Big Oil, the darling of conservative economic policy, is also the vulnerable exposed innard. Take for example how 2-3 billion dollars are spent on Iraq daily (all together now - it's about the oil), while a few years back Bush announced how a paltry 500 million dollars were to be channeled to hydrogen fuel cell research, spread out over ten years. That's 500 million over ten years, sharply contrasting with 2-3 billion a day. That looks like throwing craps ten times in a row, and you need a seven or nine every single time.
If we talk about the natural evolution of policies, what I see is the current policies headed towards disaster, and then the benefited corporations will shuttle off their moneys elsewhere, having milked this cow dry.
However, a traditional liberal policy, such as a solid working class = solid middle class = the backbone of a nation's economy, is still the standard in the most stable industrialized nations in the world today.
Australia has good scrutiny making that unlikely.
I agree wholeheartedly. In fact that's my point. It speaks volumes about a society in which one can show up and perform a non-vote as a form of protest. In fact, I would love to think that non-votes are also tabulated and presented statistically, for they are also a voice.
If you're sufficiently paranoid you can just create an informal vote by putting 1s in all the boxes...
That is a great idea. Let me tell you why I'm interested in this. I happen to live in Mexico, and I voted this past July. I know some people who did not vote, as an act of protest. I was angry at them at first, but I've come to respect their decision. However, what still bugs me is the futility of their non-gesture, lost, as Roy in Blade Runner says, like tears in the rain.
Now, in Mexico we take it as a matter-of-fact that the government has for decades commited massive acts of electoral fraud. We hope this is changing, but the horrid electoral noise this year also makes us remember that we don't have the political maturity that Oz, Canada and many european countries have. But that's a story for another time.
My point is that in all truthfullness, we have to work on the assumption that only a limited number of governments will refuse to exploit a blank ballot to their advantage.
the actual vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tells the tale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1 964
Having now read the article, holy cow, an 83 day filibuster! I remember reading about Thurmond holding the fort for 24 hours straight, like Mr Smith Goes To Washington with a putrid soul. But 83 days of dissent by his gang? That one had slipped by me!
You don't actually need to vote for anyone - you can put the blank ballot in the box and go home.
While commendable when the only good option is "None Of The Above" Down Under, there are other countries where this is extremely dangerous for the democratic process. Certain parties in many countries will find it irresistible to fill in the ballots in the process of sorting and counting the ballot. A case in point would be Mexico, where the vote consists of crossing the candidate's country with a black crayon, one ballot for each public office under contest, then each ballot goes into the appropriate urn (again, one for each public office).
I think it's fair to say that all the reasons stated above for holding elections on a Tuesday, while stellar in their reasoning for the nineteenth century, are now obsolete. Read on...
Although measures have been taken in some places, clearly it's too little at this late stage of the game. If the american public wants to scare the pants off the Washington lobbyists, a good place to start would be to campaign for Election Saturdays. Ironically, it's something that will probably be decided on a Tuesday.
Yes, there was a faction within the Democratic Party, known as the Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond, that wanted segregation to remain in place. Thurmond filibustered for 24 hours, by himself in the spotlight, an unwinnable vote to maintain segregation. After his white supremacism was defeated in Congress, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party. Go figure...
How about an election where the choices aren't limited to far right or far left? Could we have some MODERATION and a helping of sense?
Depends on what you define as right or left. Both established parties have shifted considerably to the right in the last three decades. You look at many of the things Nixon did (including kick-starting the EPA), and if he were running against Bush, Karl Rove would succesfully smear Tricky Dicky as positively pinko.
Likewise, Clinton de-regulated a bunch of industries (energy and broadcasting come to mind), an unthinkable move for a Democrat even in the times of Jimmy Carter.
Here's another example: Labor unions are weaker than ever, the slide started with Reagan, did not stop with Clinton, and nobody seems to notice. With Bush, labor has taken a nosedive. Just last week, Delta Airlines got a court ruling allowing them to pay employee their pension funds for dimes on the dollar from what was originally promised, even while executives get to keep their golden parachutes. And I haven't heard a single Democrat talk about this.
One of the main tenets of the Democrats used to be: if you are employed, we will protect you, you will be middle class and your children will go to college. Now, the Democratic message seems to be: you're on your own.
There is no far left anymore, and hasn't been for a while. As things stand, what we have in politics is moderate (the new pinko), right and far right.
How did it get to this? My guess is that the almighty corporate lobbyist dollar is to blame. Almost everyone has been corrupted equally. And those few who haven't may last one term while being nervously shunned and dismissed as 'fringe dwellers'.
Maybe voting in at least presidental elections should be required to maintain your US citizenship.
Or how about increasing voter turnout using the carrot instead of the rod:
- Change Election Day from Tuesday to Saturday. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that elections must be held on Tuesday, and I'm sure many people agree it's not such a great day to do it.
- Give preferential treatment to responsible citizens when applying for a passport, driver's licence, etc. All you have to do is show your ID that proves you have voted in a number of consecutive elections.
- Discounts on the previous things for citizens who have voted in even more consecutive elections, while throwing in discounts for public transport when you show your special ID...hey, maybe even a parking fine amnesty!
I think these would be pragmatic steps to increase voter turnout. However, with the way things are, the Powers That Be intend on keeping the number low, because if you change the status quo, lobbyists and the corporations they represent lose the upper hand. The current levels of contributions that lobbyists hand out are the difference between winning and losing an election, channeled towards the few undecided people who will vote in battleground states. Their influence is exactly as tremendous as american electoral apathy. They have this down to a science and all of Washington knows it. However, if you increase voter turnout, their contributions will be diluted, which is to say, their power will be diminished. They would no longer be able to make or break presidents! Or governors, or congressmen, etc.
So I don't think any rods or carrots will appear in the foreseeable future.
In case you fly Virgin and are lucky enough to get a seat with a power source for your iBook or PowerBook, keep this in mind:/ 1710258
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/13
For the life of me, I cannot grasp that the hell is in the minds of these corporate lackeys. Will they ever realize that assembling things on the cheap not only endangers lives, but ends up costing tons more in the long run, by way of recalls, damage control and alienated customers?
That said, now that Apple is doing a massive recall, the very least they should do is give out some sort of certificate that the battery has been replaced with a newer, safer model. These guys (Apple and Virgin) should be in talks about it.
If all else fails, at least you can kick back in your incredibly cramped Airbus seat, sipping from a can of nasty Virgin Cola, playing quarter-of-a-century-old Nintendo games, all the while trying to scrape the breakfast muffin dough that has turned to glue in the roof of your mouth. On a more sinister note, maybe Richard Branson has his eye on the battery market? Virgin Batteries, "The Life Of Your Laptop".
Somebody put a lot of thought and effort into this baby. Unf***ingbelievable.
That's it. I'm gonna bookmark a bunch of these sites and place them on a toolbar folder. Hours and hours of wild and messy fun.
Check out Robert Mugabe's presence for the government (cough) of Zimbabwe
This baby is particularly outstanding. It froze and crashed my Firefox, running on 1GB of RAM and a 2GHz processor. How do you get a website to do that?!! And how did you find this beauty? I'm impressed.
Apparently I needed sarcasm tags... :)
Or a picture of poker-faced Buster Keaton flashing once every twenty frames. Or of Group Captain Biggles with antlers.