Poll: Are you registered to vote?

Consider this both a poll and a PSA. I was reminded today there this is only about a month left to register to vote in New York in this year's election. Are you registered?

Registered just when I turned 18 and haven't missed voting in a general election ever since and don't intend miss it this year.

If you're eligible to vote in the US and aren't registered or need to change your registration, check out this page for filing deadlines in your state for the general election, which is on Nov. 2nd.

You can fill out a voter registration form here OR here to mail out. Be sure to send in your registration well in advance to ensure time for processing.

Sorry, I'm just one one of those people who feel that it is important that everyone exercise their right to vote regardless of who you support and what you believe in.

i am not, as far as i know, registered to vote at this time. i am a us citizen but never lived in the us during an election year (first i lived in israel, currently canada).

i sent out my application for an absentee ballot some months ago, & have never been notified one way or another. i'm about to send out another application.

so i really have no idea whether i'm voting in this election, but i will be very upset if i don't.

Granted, my state is going to go to Kerry anyway... but... I'll still vote against bushie.

I turn 18 FOUR days after election!

Doesn't matter. As long as you're 18 on or before voting day, you can register to vote. Rock The Vote may help you register

thats just it, ii turn 18 on nov. 6, 4 days after election day.

I was trying to figure if some sort of relativistic effect could help. Well there is one scenario. You accellerate the earth to near the speed of light while you remain at low velocity. Then decellerate the earth back to your velocity. You do this long enough that you gain 5 days on the earth. So now it is election day on earth but you are actually over 18. You would need some sort of proof that all this happened so they can verify your age.

I've made the plan, now it is up to you to work out the details. Let me know how it goes.

Wow. Total brain fart.

Yeah I turn 18 on Nov. 25th which definitely sucks for me.� I really wanted to vote as well.� I'm doing my best on campus to get other people to vote so maybe that'll count as something.

It does help. The first campaign I worked one was Eugene McCarthy's unsuccessful bid for the democratic nomination. That was the 1968 and mostly before my birthday, I was all of 10 at the time. You do what you can.

I worked on McGovern's Campaign in 1972, I was 15. he lost too. It hasn't stopped me from trying to make a difference.

Got registered to vote the earliest I could. Voted in every presidential election since Bush Sr. v Clinton. (btw, I've voted: Clinton, Browne, Browne, and this year, Badnarik).

I urge everyone to register and vote, even in local elections if you can, those are often the ones that affect you the most.

btw, I've voted: Clinton

aha! the secret is out! :)

Clinton's the only Pres. candidate I've ever voted for who's won and been sworn in.

(Anderson, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore.)

my local success rate, if anything, is worse.� :P�

I voted for Carter too. Maybe the democrats need to have candidates whose names begin with a "C." Like John Cerry!

Reminds me too much of celery

Yep. I voted for Clinton. Of course, it was when I was 18 and thought I knew everything. I was also voting for the lesser of two evils as I saw it. Since then though, I've voted pretty much straight libertarian in all elections. I have voted for a handful of Republicans and a couple of Democrats. For a while, the state representative that I voted for was a Democrat because he was for the free market, gun rights, and reduction or elimination of welfare and property taxes. Not really a Democrat then I guess.

What happened to the "I am eligible but not registered to vote answer?"

Have I mentioned life would be so much easier if I had a brain?

I thought that was on purpose. Like you were saying "there's no excuse for not being registered if you're eligible so I'm not even going to make that an option."

Oh yeah, that's it. I was being really clever, not stupid.

isn't that always the case?

Unfortunatly you guys in the US don't have much of a choice in the US. Regardless of who gets the most votes the bad guys will still win! I guess thats why the Turn out on election day in the states is so low

That is a total canard. Bush in cancelled so many Clinton initiatives, rewrote environmental laws and the tax code. Expect a similar huge change if Kerry is elected. They also totally differ on abortion rights, funding HIV programs, health care, tort reform, labor policy. civil rights, limits of government police powers...

Feel free to add to the list.

Hrm, let's see...

Rewrote the tax code? I think not, he merely cut taxes to those who pay the most taxes. And removed rules that made absolutely no sense (like the taxes on corporate dividends).

Funny, last time I checked, Kerry was opposed to abortion, supports the War in Iraq (he would NOT bring the troops home), would expand government police powers, and certainly won't do anything regarding tort reform since his Veep is a huge ambulance chaser.

Kerry would destroy our country just as efficiently as Bush has.

Huh...last time I checked, Kerry was pro-choice and in big trouble with the Catholic hierarchy.

You are right that he does not favor anti-abortion laws, but personally he is pro-life.

Well I'd say that makes Gordon's statement that Bush and Kerry "differ on abortion rights" entirely correct. And I don't see how Kerry's personal feelings on the matter will lead him to destroy the country if he doesn't believe they should be legistlated.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'm admitting I was in error. In the sleep deprived addles of my mind, I remember anti-abortion statements by Kerry, however when I checked (as I should have the first time), I found you (and Gordon) were correct.

However, I still stand by my statement that Kerry will destroy the country just as efficiently as Bush, just in different ways. :)

Oops. My bad. I was looking so hard for an arguement that I read your comment as defensive (like "well, OK, but I'm still right really!") instead of as a concession. Sorry!

As for who would destroy the country the fastest, well, there are an awful lot of parts to that debate. My money's on Bush, but no matter who gets elected in November we'll never really know, will we?

Exactly. Bush has been destroying it in an awful way. Kerry will distroy it in a good way. :)

Rewrote the tax code? I think not, he merely cut taxes to those who pay the most taxes. And removed rules that made absolutely no sense (like the taxes on corporate dividends).

I thought we had this argument... and if you count local/property taxes/sales tax, etc, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich in taxes. We could probably argue that over again if you'd like.

As far as tort reform, I'll let a friend of mine speak for me, since she's far more informed than I am:

Medical Tort reform is a big call for the Bushies, and anyone who has gotten stuck channel surfing in Washington State may have seen the infomercials for medical liability reform. These are scary, doctors are running cause they can't afford to pay for malpractice insurance because of those frivolous lawsuits.
Malpractice insurance is a twofold problem, but it has very little to do with patients who are out trying make it big in the lawsuit lottery. First, malpractice rates were rising pretty high before the economic boom of the 90's, but insurance companies (who invest heavily in the stock market) were able to freeze and even lower premium costs as the stock market soared to magical heights because they made up for lost premiums with stock gains. Since 2001- stocks have not made the return that they had been, and insurance companies got very used to those fat profit margins, so premiums during the last 4 years have been increased dramatically to make up for lost stock gains. Second, less than 5% of doctors are responsible for 90% of malpractice awards. You want to really limit those lawsuits, reform the medical licensing process so that repeat malpractice offenders loose their license and can't move to a new state to practice.

Amen. But hey, its really the trial lawyer's faults.

Anyone that says they're clones isn't looking at the big picture. That being that there are a number of supreme court justices that are well into their golden years. Its entirely likely that whoever is the next president will be picking at least one replacement. While kerry may be opposed to abortion he is FAR LESS LIKELY to appoint someone that would overturn Roe vs Wade and other rulings that I deem as progress.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Bill

Oh and to put things into some perspective...

the republican controlled congress wanted to make it a 500k fine for saying "Fuck" on television or seeing janet jackson's nipple.

But if a doctor removes the wrong foot or accidentally leaves some equipment in your body, that would be capped at 250k.

Who is the head of the FCC? A Democrat.

Yah, tell me Republicans and Democrats are all that different.

I thought we had this argument... and if you count local/property taxes/sales tax, etc, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich in taxes. We could probably argue that over again if you'd like.

Yes, we've had this argument, and without rehasing it, regarding solely the INCOME tax (not a wealth tax), the highest income earners pay most of the taxes. Kerry wants to raises taxes on people earning more that $200K/year. Most people who earn more than $200K/year are small business owners, certainly not the ones we want to be screwing with high taxes.

I agree, trial lawyers are not the only problem, but we're talking overall Tort reform, not just Medical tort reform. I think you would agree that the court system is a joke and allows patently frivolous lawsuits to go on way too far. What we need in this country, is a loser-pays system.

I'm not touching the abortion issue with a ten-foot pole.

Yes, we've had this argument, and without rehasing it, regarding solely the INCOME tax (not a wealth tax), the highest income earners pay most of the taxes. Kerry wants to raises taxes on people earning more that $200K/year. Most people who earn more than $200K/year are small business owners, certainly not the ones we want to be screwing with high taxes.

Its interesting that you only include INCOME tax when you think about these things. Perhaps its because its the only thing that supports your argument. I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from with the raise tax issue, though. Are you honestly afraid that it might screw with small business owners? I mean, the healthy tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country has produced extremely weak job growth. It certainly hasn't caused a great economic boon. Funny how when you give money to the poorest people, small business owners flourish because the poorest people are the most likely to spend that money (in small businesses of all places). Trickle down economics has been shown time and time again to be a bust... and to be frank, it must really suck to be making more than 80-90% of the rest of the schleps in the country. My heart bleeds for all the CEOs who won't be able to get the wood option on their new BMWs.

Oh, and while I don't completely disagree with your statements on tort reform in *some* cases, the main argument for tort reform is medical malpractice. A loser pays system would have a chilling effect on attempting to curb harmful and illegal business practices in the courts since, you know as well as I, the legal system isn't all that great and a lot of the times, those who have the money can pretty much get away with whatever they want. There is already a system that is in place in the courts to throw out many frivolous lawsuits and the courts often limit damages in cases where the fines are excessive. Don't like that, well, as far as I am aware, much of the local legal system is elected and the federal level is appointed. You get the system you vote for.

Trickle down economics has been shown time and time again to be a bust...

When I think of "Trickle-down economics", I get the mental picture of one of those "Calvin pissing" stickers.

the people with those stickers on their trucks (and the ones with calvin praying and all the other varients) should be excuted. no trial, just straight to the punishment.

Are youreferring to the Electoral College? It's there for a reason. The founders of our country never intended the President to be elected by popular vote. That's too much like a democracy which is something the Founding Fathers called the "worst form of government".

Yes and the magical mythical founding fathers also thought that a black person was 3/5ths of a white person. The time of the electorial college is over, any supposed benefit (giving the smaller states more of a say, statistically speaking they do, but in purpose, when was the last time you say bush or kerry in.. montana or utah?) or having an independent slate of "higher minded" people picking the president, either are not in place anymore (through laws that force electors to vote with the popular vote) or just don't work in practice.

The reason the Electoral College is needed is evidenced by the battleground states this election season:

Florida - 27 electoral votes
Iowa - 7 electoral votes
Minnesota - 10 electoral votes
Missouri - 11 electoral votes
New Hampshire - 4 electoral votes
New Mexico - 5 electoral votes
Oregon - 7 electoral votes
Wisconsin - 10 electoral votes

Most battleground states have 10 or less electoral votes. Some other lists include Ohio (20 electoral votes). If you notice though, the coasts really aren't represented in the battleground.

If this were based solely on population and popular vote, the candidates would be in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida, and Illinois.

We talked about it.. but i'm going to mention it here anyway...

Coasts are represented because anyone in PA will tell you that it is a battleground state (the prez has been there as much as 20+ times in the past four years). WA state is considered a battleground state because gore won by "only" 5% so the GOP is dumping money into the race (also because they feel that the incumbant senator is weak.. not that Neathercutt "there are better stories in Iraq then just a bunch of dead soldiers" is that strong of a candidate).

The real issue is the last time you saw anyone campaign in say, Utah or Whyoming or Hawaii or Alaska or Rhode Island or N/S Dakota or most of the fly over states. Because of the way that electoral politics works only 20 states out of any election really matter and most of them have more than 3 or 4 EC votes (which is what I could consider small). I also contend that not having representitives campaign *at all* in large states (or only to come grab money from wealthy donors and head back to the battle ground states) doesn't serve our democracy either.

Granted if you're in a solid red or blue state, the blissful lack of political advertising must be nice.

Of course, I could probably go on for days about the electoral system, lack of third parties, the fact there is only going to be, what, 4 debates (less if bush could figure out a way of doing it), etc etc...

actually you'll find turnout in most democracies as being pretty appauling (except those where its mandated by law to vote).

the idea of 'democracy' and 'mandated by law to vote' seem to be highly contradictory.

yes and so is the idea of having to register to vote.

and then there is the whole party system...

It used to be that you had to be a land owner to be able to vote. While not a perfect means for voting criteria, it at least it did limit voting to those who would be most affected (at the time) by the government.

I won't go into what I think criteria for the privledge of voting should be, I'll probably be flamed into the middle of next week (which reminds me there's a good show on that I want to catch).

If i remember my politics lessons correctly, in Australia it is compulsory to vote, but you still have the option of spoiling your ballot if you disagree.� I have become increasingly compelled by the arguments for compulsory voting as maybe it would make more people pay attention to the issues and change things and...

Every year the NME runs a "Don't Vote" Campaign and then they start slagging off whoever gets into power.� This is the attitude that winds me up the most!

Sorry brief rant there...

Much as people who don't vote and then bitch about government bug me....(and trust me, they do)...

I'm afraid that if the U.S. tried compulsory voting we'd just get way more straight-ticket voters who wouldn't pay any attention to the candidates, but instead just vote for anyone in their party.

Now, if we changed the system so that we did, in fact, vote for a party instead of a bunch of candidates, that would be a different matter and I'd be willing to reconsider. But without that, compulsory voting is probably dangerous.

one of the problems with compulsory voting is that not everyone's political ideas are represented, there is no one who is running in the next election in New Zealand who represents my way of thinking. Although I might compromise slightly and vote ACA

but won't that always be a problem in representative forms of government? there are too many issues, and too many shades of grey, for one candidate to necessarily represent all of one person's way of thinking. it's always about compromise.

unless you have a true democracy, where every single person gets exactly one vote on every single issue, your views will, most likely, never be 100% represented.

Even then it wouldn't be fair. There are in general more than two options on any issue and it can be proved mathematically that no system of voting can satisfy a small set of conditions that constitute a broad definition of fairness.

Lets say we wanted to vote on how much money to spend on lets say public zoos. In all likelyhood the only number that would get more than one vote would be 0 so in the most votes win scenario it would win even if the vast majority were in favor of it.

So what it comes down to is people have to learn the lesson you are supposed to learn in kindergarten. You can't always get your way. You have to learn to compromise. You don't get exactly what you want but you have your say and influence the outcome. Unfortunately many people never learned that lesson.

i'm not exactly certain what the heck you're trying to say here...

i mean yes, if you have an infitine number of votes and an infinite number of outcomes each outcome is as likely as any other, which is what your example is. in that case, everything is equal. you just won't find any consensus.

problem with example is, well, that is not how laws are made. nobody puts up to a vote the number of dollars one would spend on zoos, thats well, just stupid. because most people would put something like 0 or $0.02.

most things are up or down, yes or no. as in, should running a stop sign be a crime? yes or no. not yes, no, maybe sometimes, maybe sometimes not. only on thursdays, when the moon is out, etc.

it can definitely be mathematically proven that given two options to vote for, majority rules, except in the very rare instance where you have a tie (rare depending upon your set size), in which case, most democracies have a tie breaker (or in baseball, tie goes to the runner). the key points in a democracy like ours is that we have rights that outlined (some may say that is a good thing, saying hey even if the majority of people say that i shouldn't be able to say what i want, its written down that i have the right to my opinion) protecting the minority from the majority. (others might say that outining the rights is a bad idea because some will believe that those are the *only* rights you have).

basically, long story short, it can be mathematically proven that if you have (excepting tying circumstances):

a. two outcomes, majority will rule.
b. multiple outcomes (but not infinite) a plurality rules.
c. infinite outcomes (who knows, there might be a plurality there might not be, every outcome is as likely as another).
d. i have never heard of a law where the voters could write in how much money they wanted to spend on anything.

Well, same problem here.... I'm voting for kerry not because I support kerry, but because I'm against bush, and I think kerry has the best shot at defeating him.

None of them represent my views.

the problem in newzealand is that the "left" in genral isn't represented, our Labour party gets voted in not because people want Labour to run the country but because their worried the National Party will take controll, which would be worse, however the two main partys are not all that different. Labour doesn't take care of workers at all in fact the Gap between rich and pour in NZ has grown faster under a government which is supposed to represent workers. Now their even trying to Legistate to force workers to provide a medical certificate after taking one sick day!

Man... that sounds EXACTLY like the states....

*nods*

Like, I could replace "labour" with "democratic" and "national" with "republican"... and it IS exactly the same.

Which is why the US needs a viable third party. Not necessarily one that can win elections, but one that can cause enough grief for the main two parties to force a discussion of issues. The problem with the Democrats and Republicans is they are essentially the same on the basic tenet that government is the solution to most problems. They just disagree over the what problems and to what degree government should be involved.

Democrats.. republicans.... they're all a bunch of right-wing whackos.

we're not quite as bad as the states yet, National probably has more in comon with the demmocrats and labour is left of that, slightly

*pokes*

ok let's see. German general elections - source�(in German):

turnout
2002 - 79.1%
1998 - 82.2 %

not that bad ;)

I have to admit though that the turnout for elections on a more local scale (state, city) is worse...

I gave myself the "out" with the *most*, as far as I am aware (another one of those phrases that gives me an "out") the US has the worst turnout as far as elections go. But as I recall when being in europe there was a lot of talk about the steady decline in voting turnout for most of the countries there. Not that a 82.2 to 79.1 shift is earth shattering, but yea.. ha ha.

Yes but Germans also cross the street only at lights and pay subway fares even when nobody is looking. I think we're talking apples and bannanas here. ;)

just to let you know.. in australia you're not mandated to vote per se, but if you don't have a good reason for not voting, you get fined.

REALLY?!?!?!

What counts as a good reason?

Hopefully "I don't like any of the schmucks running for office" counts as a reason. I wish we had a "None of the Above" option, and if that wins, the election has to start all over with new candidates. :)

not really sure, i'm not an australian. i just looked it up after i posted because i didn't want to say something that wasn't true. i'm going to guess here, that a good reason might be, "i fell down a flight of stairs and was in a comma during the election week".

Well if a comma is an excuse, I wonder if having your period would be too. *grin*

its certainly an excuse.. but for what... (besides everything.. oh wh00ps, don't kill me!), i am sure for some people that would be a valid excuse, you'd just have to have someone vouch for you...

yea, man, she's totally crazy during that time, she might have voted and not really known what she was doing. look for a vote with the name "really really upset emotional girl" in the name field.

yes, that was in poor taste. thank you.

*Groans.
That was terrible.

I was refering to foregn policy, if America keeps giving these sort of nutters power then its going to be a sad and dangerous world for us all

I won't put things in my own words.

Read what Kerry's position is on Iraq"

Read what the NY Times has to say about it (you don't have to be registered with the Times to read this)

Me either, here is Michael Badnarik's position on Iraq.

The lesser of two evils is still evil, both of them are arseholes. The USA needs to go through huge social change right now or things are only going to get worse if fact the whole western world needs to change.

What kind of change do you think the western world needs to undergo? Keep in mind that such "progressive" countries as Germany, France, and England are part of that western world.

it's very easy to condemn when you're way over there in the antipodes.�

praytell, what is your perfect solution to our problems?�� from what I can glean from the way you have been speaking, you know nothing but flawlessness.

revolution

You're going to have to be more specific. Lots of revolutions have not led to improvements.

Nope there's no need to register to vote here. You receive a postcard with all the info (where/when) about 2 or 3 weeks before the election. On election day you go to the polling station indicated on the postcard with your id card/passport and vote (if you decide to).

Hee. It's Germany and everything 's well organised ;-)

I'm registered back home, but I need to remember to move my registration up here in Rochester... *nodnod*

-- Pauley

Done.

-- Pauley

Congratulations!

For a start to stop living off the third world. People will only put up with being shat on for so long, and yes germany france england and newzealand are all guilty. plain and simple its unsustainable

*blinks* Living off the third world. Um, exactly how do we do that? Last time I checked, we were the ones feeding them, providing them free medical care, etc.

so you don't wear any clothing produced in sweatshops, nothing you own is produced by workers who earn less than a dollar a day. Were the ones feeding them? Theres enough food to feed every living person on this planet and your getting excited with the pathetic ammount of aid 1st world countries provide some countries that need it. Wake up. Countries like saudi arabia which is the biggest producer of crude oil has people starving in the street and you wonder why their pissed off? Free medical care, excuse me but last I cheaked there are still thousands of children dying of basic diseases. The first world does nothing for the third world

Wow, I hardly know where to begin.

Let's see, sweatshops and the magical dollar a day. Have you ever seen any of the actual economic numbers associated with those sweatshops? In most of the countries where such "sweatshops" arise, a dollar a day is roughly 10-20 times the living wage in their country. You can compare our standard pay to their standard pay and then not take into account the economic conditions in those countries.

Second, most workers in such "sweatshops" actually WANT to work there. Much of the time, they find the working conditions in such "sweatshops" as preferable to slaving away 10-14 hours a day in bone breaking hard labor that pays a tenth as much and most likely will send them to an early grave.

Lastly, the term sweatshops. Most sweatshops are not sweatshops. There are exceptions, there are a handful which are exploitation, but they are the exception. In most cases the so-called sweatshops are much better work environments. Besides, if you want companies to quit going overseas, remove regulations and taxes which force them to go overseas to be able to make a profit.

As for the aid we give to the third world. Most of the problem with that is the actual governments, mostly dictators, in the third world. An independent study of government aid given the third world (by Human Rights Watch I think) showed that in the case of Africa, only 7% of all aid actually made it to those in need! The rest goes to the government or dictator and his cronies. You want the third world to get better? Have them embrace capitalism and a republican form of government.

Then there is private charity. The American People are some of the most generous people on earth. I can't stand it when people like you bash America for not doing enough when we ARE the ones doing the most in the world. Americans are charitable and giving people. To say otherwise is ignorance or deceit.

Simply put, it is not our place to rectify the ills of the third world, unless you want us conquering them and making them part of our nations to bring them the same protections. You say we should better their lives, but at what cost? Who will pay to bring them even the most basic infrastructure? Will you let companies profit off bringing them running water and electricity or should we do it all for "free"?

Well, before I get started I just like to say I have nothing against Americans, just the repressive regimes that govern them.

Dictators many of which were installed and supported by America eg Sadam and the Taliban.

What you just said about sweat shops is complete bollocks, have you actually seen the conditions that they work under, I recomend Pilger for wonderful decrription of the boarding houses at the GAP factories in Indonesia with the open sewers tiny cubicles and slave wages, I'm shure they are happy little workers though as you would have us believe.
American democracy, what a joke, just look at who is running your country right now a man who only got to the presidency because of his family ties, and discounting black votes democracy ha!
America is rich because it screws the rest of the world.
Conquring and protecting, just recently your esteemed administration tried this in Iraq and Afghanistan and it hasn't worked! They don't want you! Go back over the years and you'll find that America has bombed over 30 countries since the second world war, many third world countries, many for economic interests. Oh and Veitnam didn't want the US there and American democracy failed there too. The lesson we learn from this is that American Democracy doesn't mean freedom.
The third world is not made up of Morons like you think, they are rational and intellegent human beings.
Companies don't provide anything they don't absolutly have to to workers, and as I mentioned before they don't provide running water.
Private charity, well that comes down to individual charities but verry little of that money makes it past the advertising budget.
Over half the American overseas aid budget goes to Israel, which then uses it to buy weopons which they then use to kill palistians, and again you wonder why some people are upset with America.
Again, this isn't an attack on American people, and I hope I don't offend anyone too much

For a start, could you use the reply button?

:)

If I had a dime for every time someone didn't use the reply button, and another one for them being corrected I still wouldn't be rich. Oh well.

Anarchy. If this was globably accepted, we'd probably be doing straight trading for goods. Think of the benefits of this; a lot of people break the law because subconciously they reject order or at least other's telling them what they can and can't do. If there is no authority to stand against, then we just eliminated a huge chunk of bad doers, since they will no longer feel compelled to do things against their fellow man. On top of that, we'd live in a world of what George Carlin calls Passive Eugenics..."The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't grow up to have kids of his own." There are a lot more possitives to anarchy than people realize WITHOUT being completely insane. With trading, since their would be no law against how it should be run, nothing would ever have a consistant value. A needle could get you a week's worth of food one day where it would only get you a shirt the next. That would mean in order to survive, however, individuals would have to be careful how they dealt with their goods, since consistant "high value" would result in no one trading with you. Of course, violence could then commence, but if it went that far, then you'd be killing off your prospective trade partners, and thus no longer having a replenishable resources via others.

Consistantly getting to that point would mean we'd all be eliminated eventually, or we'd all but wipe ourselves out until one person or a faction took control, then government would come back, and we'd be back to the same shiothole we be in now.

Forget I said anything.

haha

Well, thanks for walking us through it, anyway. :)

HotorNot.com is having a $100,000 sweepstakes for registered U.S.voters. They provide a link to register if you aren't.

voter sweepstakes

Before I start this poem by Emmanuel Ortiz

Before I start this poem,
I'd like to ask you to join me

in a moment of silence
in honour of those who died
in the World Trade Centre
and the Pentagon
last September 11th.

I would also like to ask you
a moment of silence
for all of those who have been
harassed, imprisoned, disappeared,
tortured, raped, or killed
in retaliation for those strikes,
for the victims in both
Afghanistan and the U.S.

And if I could just add one more thing...
A full day of silence
for the tens of thousands of Palestinians
who have died at the hands of
U.S.-backed Israeli forces
over decades of occupation.

Six months of silence
for the million and-a-half Iraqi people,
mostly children, who have died of
malnourishment or starvation
as a result of an 11-year U.S. embargo
against the country.

Before I begin this poem:
two months of silence
for the Blacks under Apartheid
in South Africa,
where homeland security
made them aliens
in their own country.

Nine months of silence
for the dead in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, where death rained
down and peeled back
every layer of concrete, steel, earth and skin
and the survivors went on as if alive.

A year of silence
for the millions of dead
in Vietnam--a people, not a war-
for those who know a thing or two
about the scent of burning fuel,
their relatives' bones buried in it,
their babies born of it.

A year of silence
for the dead in Cambodia and Laos,
victims of a secret war ... ssssshhhhh ....
Say nothing ... we don't want them to learn
that they are dead.

Two months of silence
for the decades of dead
in Colombia, whose names,
like the corpses they once represented,
have piled up and slipped off
our tongues.

Before I begin this poem,
An hour of silence for El Salvador ...
An afternoon of silence
for Nicaragua ...
Two days of silence
for the Guetmaltecos ...




None of whom ever knew
a moment of peace
45 seconds of silence
for the 45 dead
at Acteal, Chiapas
25 years of silence
for the hundred million Africans
who found their graves
far deeper in the ocean
than any building could
poke into the sky.
There will be no DNA testing
or dental records
to identify their remains.
And for those who were
strung and swung
from the heights of
sycamore trees
in the south, the north,
the east, and the west...

100 years of silence...
For the hundreds of millions of
indigenous peoples
from this half of right here,
Whose land and lives were stolen,
In postcard-perfect plots
like Pine Ridge,
Wounded Knee,
Sand Creek, Fallen Timbers,
or the Trail of Tears.
Names now reduced
to innocuous magnetic poetry
on the refrigerator
of our consciousness ...
So you want a moment of silence?

And we are all left speechless
Our tongues snatched from our mouths
Our eyes stapled shut
A moment of silence
And the poets have all been laid to rest
The drums disintegrating into dust
Before I begin this poem,
You want a moment of silence
You mourn now as if the world will never be the
same
And the rest of us hope to hell it won't be.
Not like it always has been

Because this is not a 9-1-1 poem
This is a 9/10 poem,
It is a 9/9 poem,
A 9/8 poem,
A 9/7 poem
This is a 1492 poem.
This is a poem about
what causes poems like this
to be written

And if this is a 9/11 poem, then
This is a September 11th poem
for Chile, 1971
This is a September 12th poem
for Steven Biko in South Africa, 1977
This is a September 13th poem
for the brothers at Attica Prison,
New Yor k, 1971.
This is a September 14th poem
for Somalia, 1992.

This is a poem
for every date that falls
to the ground in ashes
This is a poem for the 110 stories
that were never told
The 110 stories that history
chose not to write in textbooks
The 110 stories that CNN, BBC,
The New York Times,
and Newsweek ignored
This is a poem
for interrupting this program.
And still you want
a moment of silence
for your dead?
We could give you
lifetimes of empty:

The unmarked graves
The lost languages
The uprooted trees and histories
The dead stares on the faces
of nameless children
Before I start this poem
We could be silent forever
Or just long enough to hunger,
For the dust to bury us
And you would still ask us
For more of our silence.

If you want a moment of silence
Then stop the oil pumps
Turn off the engines and the televisions
Sink the cruise ships
Crash the stock markets
Unplug the marquee lights,
Delete the instant messages,
Derail the trains, the light rail transit

If you want a moment of silence,
put a brick through
the window of Taco Bell,
And pay the workers for wages lost
Tear down the liquor stores,
The townhouses, the White Houses,
the jailhouses, the Penthouses and
the Playboys.

If you want a moment of silence,
Then take it
On Super Bowl Sunday,
The Fourth of July
During Dayton's 13 hour sale
Or the next time your white guilt
fills the room where my beautiful
people have gathered

You want a moment of silence
Then take it
& nbsp; Now,
Before this poem begins.

Here, in the echo of my voice,
In the pause between goosesteps of the second
hand
In the space
between bodies in embrace,

Here is your silence.
Take it.
But take it all
Don't cut in line.
Let your silence begin
at the beginning of crime But we,
Tonight we will keep right on singing
For our dead.




Emmanuel Ortiz works with the Minnesota
Alliance for the Indigenous Zapatistas (MAIZ)
and Estaci�n Libre. He is a staff member of the
Resource Centre of the Americas, the non-profit
publisher of americas.org

"A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."

Martin Luther King Jr

*stunned*

i've seen this poem a couple of times before, and i've always had the same reaction.

it's selective in the story it tells, but none of it is untrue. and the sense of perspective it invokes -- of global events, of "national" events seen globally, and of history -- is numbing.

wow *jaw drops*

it is an incredible poem, both in it's history and in it's america-bashing. such a selectivity of events chosen.

good nonetheless.

selective? in what way?

it seems to focus only on the ways that america was involved in people dying.

left out the 6 million jews in WWII, the millions stalin killed, and I'm sure there are other huge groups of people dying. but those weren't mentioned, just ones that slammed america.

not that that's a bad thing, america has helped kill lots of people in one form or another, but it seemed rather biased.

Also it wasn't America that created the mess in the third world. That was solidly a European enterprise. We merely exploit the situation that they created.

and. um. Israelis/Palestinians? I am certainly no fan of reflexive US support for whatever Israel does, but the situation is a little more complex than just Israel "occupying" land and persecuting poor innocent Palestinians.

WWII non-combatant (civilian and prisoner of war) death toll at the hands of the Nazis:

5,7800,00 Jews.
2,692,000 Polish Gentiles
7,000,000 Russian Civilians
1,000,000 Romani and Centi
200,000 physically handicapped, mentally handicapped, elderly, mentally ill, and people they labeled as mentally ill so they could get rid of them. (German Citizens, "euthanasia" program. They were considered a waste of resources. The translation of the term used for them is "Useless Eaters".)
8,348 US and British POWs
3,000,000 Russian POWs
15,000 Homosexuals
1,600 Jehovah's Witnesses



Chew on those numbers, Cam.
We had no part in that.

Yes we did. We helped stop it. Many people thought that we shouldn't as it wasn't "our problem."

Just like in Bosnia.

well, it did kind of become "our problem" in Pearl Harbor.

Hence the Hiroshima and Nagasaki part of the poem.

Before then, the US mood was extremely isolationist despite the clear pattern of all-out conquest and genocide being practiced by the Axis.

and then there was the Japanese rape of a good chunk of China and east Asia. Another huge number of dead there.

with all those millions... I was just keeping it small.

*gasps*

nonono.

keeping it small by only mentioning deaths at the hands of the nazis.

(but I did leave out the Belarussian deaths because there may never be an even semi-accurate number because of the chaos there)

i know. it's just mind-boggling to look at -even- the Nazi total. the word "small" was a marvel of understatement.

btw, i dig your icon. :)

unfortunatly you missed the point of the poem, it is directed at america, it's about the USA. Its aimed at the USA. It doesn't blame America for all the worlds problems its just highlighting the ones that the states are involved in.
Also any debate on Isreil/palistine shouldn't involve Nazi war crimes as they are not related.
There are alot of bad things are happening in the world and alot of things have happened in the past and connot be put in one poem, this poem is only about american imperialism.

Also any debate on Isreil/palistine shouldn't involve Nazi war crimes as they are not related.

Then, clearly, you are truly ignorant on the issue.

Many Israelis are Holocaust surivors and their descendants. The history of atrocities in Europe and the history of Israel are closely intertwined.

Many are, however it is not right under any circumstance to force people from their own country.
Palistianians are not responsible for the Holocaust.
Natzi war crimes are one of the darkest chapters in human history We need to remember them and do everything in our power to prevent it from ever happening again

The Palestinians have never had a country. Even the Arab countries they reside in want nothing to do with them, and/or persecute them worse than the Israelis ever could.

I think we can all agree on one thing though. Government is responsible for the highest death toll in human history (government in any form).

no one is forcing anyone from anywhere.

Yes you are true, but what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Just because we didn't cause all of the deaths worldwide doesn't mean we still don't have innocent blood on our hands.

and that's one of the examples *I* meant by selective, because I meant it as "the example cited only looks at American action, not what precipitated it".

perhaps we shouldn't have used the atom bomb there. perhaps we should have. we were at war, not of our own making. innocents were being slaughtered globally, many by the nation we bombed. was bombing the best way to cut that war short on the Pacific front? I don't know.

I don't like the death and casualty toll of civilians from those bombings any better than you do, but I do know that Japan was a huge aggressor in that war and had not been deterred by lesser tactics. That display of overwhelming force did end their pillaging of Asia and allow everyone to focus on the European theatre. It arguably meant many less deaths not only for US servicemen, but also for China, Korea, and other countries subject to Japanese plunder. I wish there had been a less horrific, less suffering-intensive way to accomplish that, but I'm not sure there was given the intractability, nationalistic fervor, ruthlessness, and remorselessness of that particular foe.

I'll Monday-morning quarterback Pearl Harbor, but not Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

That display of overwhelming force did end their pillaging of Asia and allow everyone to focus on the European theatre.

Um point of accuracy Lori dear. Germany surrendered on May 8th 1945. We dropped the first atom bomb on August 6th 1945. The bomb ended the war. It didn't allow us to focus on Europe. Quite the opposite, beating Germany allowed us to focus on the Pacific.

whoopsie. *cringes*

guess i just failed WWII Chronology. :(

Actually Japans Military was almost completly destroyed by the time the bomb was droped.

Actually the Japanese military command Japanese didn't want to surrender even after Hiroshima and the allied estimated a million casualties would be the cost of an invasion. The post war analysis was that more Japanese civilians would have died in conventional bombings than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the war had continued.

Perhaps those estimates are wrong but there is nothing easier than Monday morning quarterbacking and nothing more difficult than making life and death decisions with the imperfect knowledge that exists at the time.

not only that, but because the war in europe was over, stalin would have gotten involved in the pacific. we wanted a quick and decisive victory over japan or suffer the same fate as germany (and the rest of europe) the country would have. The russians would have invaded from the north. nothing like doing 95% of the work, only to have to deal with the russians on the last 5% and probably end up splitting the country in half (just look at eastern europe and you can see that while dropping the bombs was a disaster, it probably saved a lot of people a lot of misery, war is hell, plain and simple). This is all secondary to the amount of lives it would have cost to invade the japanese mainland. While I'm not too fond of the idea of having dropped the bombs, there is a lot of evidence that in the long run it saved lives compared to a very prolonged bombing campaign and landing the amount of troops on the ground to breach japanese defenses (not to mention house to house fighting, like that seen in stalingrad). To think that the japanese wouldn't have fought to the last man is naive esp. considering the kamazee (sp) pilots. While the millon casuality estimate that was used might have been high, I do not think that 250k (which is what a lot of people say is realistic) is any better, esp. considering that this was only military personel. To think that no civialians would have been killed or injured is bunk.

"left out the 6 million jews in WWII, the millions stalin killed, and I'm sure there are other huge groups of people dying. but those weren't mentioned, just ones that slammed america"

Of course it did. It was making a point.

If you hit billy on the playground and a teacher came over to yell at you, would you saying "yeah, but Suzie over there hit some kid the other day too!" make what you did right? Would it make it any less punishable?

You're taking this too personally. The poem is not an attack on you, and it is not saying America is evil. However, it is ment to put things into perspective; as holy as our nation claims to be, every light has a shadow, and we are not perfect. And while we can't do exactly what the poem says to do ("Then stop the oil pumps / Turn off the engines and the televisions / Sink the cruise ships / Crash the stock markets / Unplug the marquee lights...") We need to stop and look at this and try to change it.

Yes, it's horrible that these "evil" countries are killing innocent people, like Russia and Nazi Germani and Saddam's Iraq, but shouldn't we try to analize our actions before we join them? Isn't inteligent questioning of government - and not just blindly following along chanting "God Bless America" - part of being free?

And yes, I AM American. And Damn proud. Although, the current administration is making me more and more ashamed to admit it...

How about problems caused by people in New Zealand?



Ever heard of a bird called the kakapo? At one time, there were hundreds of thousands of these birds, often described as innocent and solemn. They have no "fight or flight" instinct because, until relatively recently, they had no natural predators. Because of true stupidity and colonialism, there are 62 left in the world as of 1999. There probably aren't many more, as the female kakapo is only able to breed once every two years. The cats, rats, stoats, dogs and other exotic animals your people imported have all but killed them off. I correct that. The people of New Zealand have done their part actively over the years, with gross overhunting.

The kakapo is extinct on the north island and now only exist in the wild in Fiordland. There have been attempts to rectify the atrocities and start breeding programs, but they are underfunded and have not been successful. This is probably largely due to the fact that out of 62 birds left, only 13 are female.



The huia, extinct for the same reasons as the kakapo's extreme endangerment. In the 1880�s Māori chiefs put a tapu on the huia, making it illegal under Māori law to kill the bird, but Europeans continued to hunt it. In 1888 a total of 646 huia were killed in one month in forest on the Wairarapa Coast. In 1892 a law was passed banning the killing or capture of huia in New Zealand, but enforcement of the law was weak. After the Duke of York received a hat with a huia feather in it, it became very fashionable.

The last huia was seen in 1907



The laughing owl? Ferrets and stoats. Extinct at the end of the 19th century.



Hoiho, the yellow-eyed penguin. Endangered for the same reasons I've been repeating again and again.



The Tararue, the short-tailed bat, one of the only two native species of mammal to New Zealand, severely endangered due to deforestation.



New Zealand has a very very poor conservation record. Conservation efforts have only begun very recently, and often seem futile because of the extensive damage done.

You know those ferrets, stoats, cats, and some other animals I keep mentioning? They were introduced to stop the rabbit problem.

Rabbits are yet another animal introduced by the Europeans.

Even the Maori have done their part, with the accidental introduction of the kiore rat, but the damage done by European colonialists exceeds this several hunded-fold.



Say what you want about us, but we've been able to restore and successfully protect our bison, our golden and bald eagles, our sea otters, our grizzly bears, our sea turtles. Less successfully, but certainly better than scores of other species around the world, our manatee.


Yes, there are some extict species in America due to stupidity, but your country exceeds ours in that area by leaps and bounds. At least we recognized the problem before it was too late.

I've never defended NZ and never will, your right we have a poor conservation movement in NZ and unfortunatly a couple of months ago a several Kakapo died of a virus, the kiwi is another bird facing extinction yet people still let their dogs roam loose near native forest.

The Native wood pigion is another bird which was hunted almost to extinction we also live in a country hich was once 95% covered in forest (we call it bush) and now verry little of that remains. It amazes me that we sell our "clean green" image to the Tourism industry its a complete farse

there is a sad and bitter irony when it comes to the kiwi.

I mean, it's a national symbol.

to paraphrase Gandhi, the mark of a truly advanced nation is kindness to animals.

I forget the exact quote, and if someone can give that to me, I'd be eternally grateful. maybe even give you pie.

you mean, like the bald eagle.

which we've successfully restored to the point where its extinction is not imminent.

hopefully NZ can get on track environmentally.

for that matter, hopefully so can we, after the past 3.75 years of disaster.

the quote: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

google is your friend, y0.

:)

"At least we recognized the problem before it was too late."

Actually, with the rate that Bush is undercutting and eliminating environmental laws and regulations, that's not really true.

Can we not turn this into an "Us vs Them" argument? There is nothing wrong with showing the US in a negative light, and you all are taking this WAY to personally. In my opinion, while Cam doesn't have some of the facts on our country's policies that we have, he does have an unjaded and "un-tainted by God-Bless-America retoric" That we have. We are so quick to defend our country when someone points out our flaws that we leap on top of them instead of sitting back and saying "ya know, maybe they're right" and MAYBE trying to fix it.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see Cam as totally wrong here. And shifting blame and focus and saying "what about what THESE people did?" doesn't change the fact that yes, our beloved nation HAS in fact done horrible things in the past. What we need to ask ourselves now is, how the hell are we going to make sure that these things do not happen again?

how the hell are we going to make sure that these things do not happen again?

Well, first step is voting bush out.
:)

And if he wins again then we all need to take advantage of the end of the assault weapons ban and buy guns, because baby, it will then be revolution time. ;)

*clicky clicky click* *cut n' paste*

*clicky clicky click click* email to:[email protected]

*clicky click* Send.

;-)

*snort*

oww.

don't make me laugh so hard when i'm eating ice cream! :D

What? I thought the second amendment was there so that we could overthrow the government if democracy fails and it becomes a tyrany. 4 more years of Bush meets my, and many other's conditions of a tyrany, so we're merely exercising our constitutional rights. Perfectly legal revolution. Who's with me? If anybody has a tank that would be really helpful.

i think Canada has a tank.

maybe three.

or call in Gordon with his Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Sorry, a modern day revolution will never work unless it's either a) wide spread and popular, or b) supported by the military or at least a decent amount of the military.

Kinda hard to raise a revolution against Apache helicopters and stealth bombers. That's why private citizens should be allowed to own RPGs and Stinger missiles. :)

That's why private citizens should be allowed to own RPGs


duuude.

fight for the right to dungeons and dragons!

take those orcs down! and that gazebo!

Wasn't this another one of my arguments? ;)

I have John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld finger puppets.

I mostly just make them make out a lot.

The thing about finger puppets is just think about what part of their anatomy you are putting your finger in.

I voted on my way to work this morning. Anyone else?

Primary in your state?

I voted last weekend on a ISD (Independent School District) bond proposal. I'm happy to say that all three bond proposals were trounced by the voters (our ISD has the highest tax rate in the North Texas area).

No, primary day isn't for another 15 days or so.
Unless you're talking about the first day of the YEAR... in which case it's a few months off.

Nate, the Massachusetts primary for state offices is today, so if you have state HoR/Senate races you're following, or the Governor's Council, Sheriff, that kind of thing, don't forget to vote!

heh.. you missed my funny.

Yes, primary in MA.

My polling place is the town's high school.

Man, did I feel old.

Our primary is today but there is no contest in my district.

Same here... only contests appeared to be among Independant candidates, and I'm not in that party.

Besides, I wasn't registered in time for the primary anyway.

-- Pauley