One Person, One Traded Vote

How ingenious. How pragmatic. How sad. The fact that this sort of vote-trading scheme is getting some traction and being advertised in some pretty mainstream media outlets makes me wonder what kind of democracy we have. The moral responsibility of citizens in a free society ought to be to vote their consciences. By encouraging people to trade their votes, some of us are telling others "Hey, it's okay to vote someone else's conscience because she's gonna vote yours." Despite the net result, it's nowhere near the same thing.

Now for the partisan part of the e-mail: notice when this sort of thing gets suggested. In the '92 and '96 elections there was nowhere near this sort of contrived plan to prevent Perot from siphoning votes that would have gone to Big Bush or Dole. This isn't because Republicans couldn't see what Perot was going to do, or because Republicans are too stupid to use the Internet. It's because--ignoring what sort of Liddyesque tricks all candidates and their campaign generals might be disposed towards--the rank and file Republican would find it very distasteful to "trade" a vote.

So now a whole bunch of us are supposed to play the political system like currency brokers. Why? So that a liberal with substance and credibility can get his 5% without preventing a borderline-socialist with no substance and no credibility from winning the tattered and torn White House? Bullshit.

Oh, I know... if Bush wins we're all going to buy guns and strip mine our back yards. Women won't be able to get abortions, it will be legal to stomp minorities and gay people will have to stop being gay.

C'mon, who are we kidding besides ourselves. We elect Presidents, not emperors and certainly not gods. And I know they appoint justices, but just ask Robert Bork how easy it is to stack the Court with ultra-conservatives. Bush knows he can't turn the Supreme Court, much less the world, on its ear, and any of his supporters who think he can will soon find themselves mistaken.

Vote for whoever you want. And if you trade your vote, you should at least call for an end to the archaic Electoral College. That way we could really be a country where one person equals one person equals one vote.

Posted on behalf of Jeremy Valdez

Vote Nader!

Wait a second, before I start speaking, I need to tack up a 25 x 40-foot American flag behind my podium.

BANGBANG BANGBANGBANG BANG

Okay. Ahem.

Bob Dole ... well ... I never had anything much against him. I think he was the finest candidate in the 1924 presidential race.

Just before Elizabeth Dole vanished from the campaign race, she promised to ratchet up the War on Drugs bigtime -- this time she was REALLY going to get tough on drugs! What a gal. I'm really glad she vanished. Is "boza" the feminine form of "bozo"?

The "manwoman" you are describing, the one you wish were running for president, IS running for president. His name is Ralph Nader. You can vote for him on 7 November.

You just can't see him on the debates. In fact, the night of the first Bush-Gore debate, someone slipped Nader an ordinary audience seat ticket. But the guards refused to let him in to sit in the audience.

I'm not a lifelong rabid Nader fan, and I'm not a card-carrying Green.

But

* We know from 30 years experience that Nader is scrupulously honest

* We know he's smart as a whip

* We know he doesn't spend every Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday playing golf with big corporation executives

* We know his efforts have saved a lot of lives and changed, for the safer and the better, an enormous amount of the way the USA conducts its marketplace

* We know he doesn't chase hot young babes around much, and we know this because General Motors hired private detectives to snoop into his private life, and they didn't find anything

Ah. Now we get to The Spoiler Thing. Yes, you say, Nader is Nice, but a vote for Nader can never make him the President, so you're wasting your vote in the opposite direction from the best chance for a reasonably decent president.

First of all, by that logic, if I go into the voting booth and see

[ ] Milosivec

[ ] Hitler

[ ] Jerry Brown

I have to vote for either Milosivec or Hitler. Otherwise I'm not being Realistic. My guess is, that's how Milosivec and Hitler got their jobs in the first place.

Who sets these rules for being realistic? Clearly, if you look at who's excluded from the debates, and the rules for distributing the public $millions for candidates, the Republican and Democratic Parties are working overtime to set the rules for being realistic.

(Buchanan is excluded from the debates too. Eight years ago, the presidential candidate of the party he represents, weird old jug-ears, got 14 percent of the vote.) The Federal Elections Commission is just a bunch of old Democrat and Republican golf buddies whose sole mission is to make sure there'll never be a successful third party or candidate.

So screw that. I'm voting for Nader. And if it sucks votes away from Gore, that's just dandy. Guess what Gore just promised to do? Keep cannabis, recreational and medicinal, outlawed forever, AND ratchet up the War on Drugs again! This time he's REALLY going to get tough on drugs! (Ditto Bush. And both of them koff koff are EXPERTS on illegal drugs, with extensive personal experiences.)

ASIDE TO PHYSICIANS ON THIS LIST: For me, the problem isn't the medical science behind medicinal or recreational cannabis. It's why we throw so many non-violent, young, off-white people into prison over this stuff and then make sure they can never vote again or get college financial aid. It's why we use pot to maintain a society DESIGNED on imprisonment. It's why we had Alcohol Prohibition, got smart enough to get rid of it, but are doing it ALL OVER AGAIN!

So quit your whining and vote for Nader. If he gets 10 percent of the vote and screws up the election for Gore, that guarantees that a terrified Democratic Party will start talking about Green issues -- justice, a rational, sane drugs policy, racial justice, an end to throwing all our non-white, mentally ill, addicted, poor, illiterate people into prison -- four years from now.

Also, both Bush and Gore support the upcoming war in Colombia. (The USA has exempted Colombia from human-rights standards so we can jump into this war. Your tax dollars will go straight to right-wing paramilitary death squads.) To this US Army Vietnam-era veteran, that means that if either Bush or Gore win, it's time to start making sketches for the Colombia War Memorial in Washington DC.

Of course we've promised to send only military advisers, no combat troops. Was anybody here around in 1962? They haven't even bothered to change the wording of this Lie. (Since Reagan, the press has been excluded from Dover Delaware Air Force Base, where the military ships back its body bags. The press can't even count them anymore.)

Nader has promised to decriminalize cannabis (joint appearance with New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, sorry about the entendre of "joint"), and I don't theeeeeeenk he is going to bumble into a war in Colombia. Bush is certainly that stupid, Gore has been making all the right noises to prove he's that stupid; Nader is not that stupid.

Also -- I don't think the Firestone / Ford Exploder mess would have played itself out the way it has under a Nader administration. Like I said -- Nader doesn't play golf with corporation CEOs, or sleep with them in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Vote Nader. We thank you for your support.

Droog4
Elmer Elevator's Discount Prep:
http://www.javanet.com/~bobmer/

posted by charlotte for Droog4

Okay, I've felt this way about sports celebrities for a long time, but I'm finally going to rant about it...

So it's a sad-but-true fact that the media and our society idolize sports figures based on their prowess in the sport, regardless of who they are as human beings. Although I've known this for a long time, I saw it pervasively this weekend when I attended two NHL games. Though I know I have to respect some players for their innate talent and years of skill development, I can't stomach when people idolize players who are scum off the ice, and I saw it over and over again this weekend, and it ticked me off! I keep wondering if the fans wearing these players' sweaters have ANY IDEA what those guys have done with their time when they weren't on the ice making great saves, killing off penalties, or scoring goals. Yes, these guys deserve All-Star accolades and praise for their hockey playing, but geez...don't you have any conscience whatsoever about idolizing someone who's scum??

What makes a person scum? Well I'm not EVEN going to get into the debate about players who are arrested for drugs or prostitution or anything like that. Both of the players I'm annoyed about have been arrested for violence against women. This is the deal. While a lot of fans at this arena were wearing sweaters displaying the names and numbers of players I don't have any dirt on, a fairly large number of sweaters displayed the names and numbers of two players in particular who've physically victimized women. First case in point, earlier this year, one of the biggest names on the team had a run-in at a hotel, during which his female companion (who was not his wife, I must add) called the front desk of the hotel because she wanted to leave his room, but the player was refusing to let her leave. She was scared, and asked that someone come up and escort her out. When the escort arrived, a scuffle ensued. The evening ended with the player putting a security guard in a headlock at one point, begging the cops not to take him to jail (and even offering them a sum of ONE BILLION DOLLARS if they wouldn't -- as if even HE makes that kind of money), and finally, in his most dignified move, puking in the squad car. But despite the fact that he physically frightened his companion, attacked a security officer, and attempted to bribe the police, the fans LOVE him and will defend him to the end because of his showing on the ice. It makes me sick that they give no credence to who he is off the ice. I don't really yearn for the morally conservative days of the past, but whatever happened to a community shunning someone who hurts one of their own? But evidently it's not about the fact that he hurt someone and has no problem trying to buy his way out of trouble -- as long as this guy keeps the team winning, they're all behind him! Ick.

Case two: Another player on this team (who, I might add, is featured prominently in the team's merchandise catalog) was arrested a few years ago for assaulting his wife the night after his team was eliminated from the Stanley Cup playoffs. Although the case was never prosecuted because his wife eventually changed her mind and decided not to press charges, it doesn't change the facts of her statement to the police, which said that he hit her several times and cut her leg with a kitchen knife. (Sidebar: It happens far too often that women are scared enough to call the cops when they're being abused, but given time to think it over, recant and refuse to press charges later. I'd love to see society encourage and support abused spouses -- either men OR women -- to follow through with their charges and to get serious help immediately, rather than letting the abuse continue. However, we obviously don't live in such a society, as was evident to me at the games this weekend.)

So here's this guy who's arrested for attacking his wife during an argument. I'll give you that people do crazy things during arguments, but punching and cutting your spouse with a knife shouldn't be part of the behavior, no matter how heated the argument is, no? Well, evidently not many people think that's a big deal, as I saw MANY female fans wearing this guy's name and number on their team sweaters at the game. At one of the games, the guy sitting next to me asked why I wasn't a fan of the home team. I answered honestly that I couldn't rally behind men who abuse women (as in this case, the victims were women). The guy and his buddy shrugged me off. They didn't offer back anything like "well yeah, but he's gotten help since then" or "yeah, it's too bad about that, he's a great player aside from that..." They didn't seem to think it was a big deal at all. He's a great player, and that's all that matters as far as I could tell. argh.

So anyway. I hate these players for who they are off the ice, and I hate the fans who seem to think it's totally okay, so long as their team keeps winning. I sometimes long for the days of community justice, where a group of people who knew the facts of the matter doled out their own brand of justice to the offender, keeping the offender in line and setting an example for anyone else who wanted to break the same community rule. Oddly enough, that's a lot of what hockey's "enforcers" are about, but evidently society itself isn't ready to enforce any codes of conduct on its sports celebrities. Instead, we're happy to spend $200 on a jersey that proudly displays the player's name and number, and implies the wearer looks up to him, admires him, and aspires to be like him.

It just makes me sad and pissy...

There is no God

see... more permanent fatal errors!
what kind of world are we living in where heaven exists, but has a gift shop and god is not in it?
charlotte

>X-From_: MAILER-DAEMON Fri Oct 13 23:21:17 2000
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:21:17 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
>To:
>Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
>Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
>
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
> (reason: 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown)
>
>
>X-Sender: charlotte@charlottesometimes.com
>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:31:47 -0700
>To: god@heaven.org
>From: Charlotte Sometimes
>Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
>
>
>this bounced from your other account. is this one still working?
>
>charlotte
>
>>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
>>From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
>>To: postmaster
>>To:
>>Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
>>Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
>>
>>
>> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>>
>> (reason: system config error)
>>
>>
>>Final-Recipient: RFC822; god@god.com
>>Action: failed
>>Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:01:07 -0400 (EDT)
>>Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:11:35 -0700
>>To: god@god.com
>>From: Charlotte Sometimes
>>Subject: fish
>>
>>
>>dear god,
>>
>>we need more tasty fish like salmon.
>>
>>smooches,
>>charlotte
>>
>>
>
>

I started writing a response to the political conversation going on, and I had a frickin' novel done by the time I reread what I'd written. I stripped out the larger issues and just want to say this for now:

I find it incredibly amusing to see this current anti-sentiment for "corporate globalization" from people living in places like Seattle and Austin, the homes of Starbucks and Dell Computer, considering that most of the people who are making good money in those cities work for companies which wouldn't exist if it weren't for the global economy and massive global corporations that have paved the way for the smaller technology companies.

How many of us would have our current jobs and current salaries if it weren't for the pioneering efforts over the past many years of global corporations like Microsoft and IBM, the only giants who had enough money to put into R&D for all these applications we work on now? Four years ago, before the explosion of the commerical internet and startup software companies, I was working at UT making $18,000 a year. Are you ready to give up your monster salary, your wonderful apartment, your slick car, and your toys to go back to a local-based economy? Because you can't have it both ways. I'd love to see the ranks of the protesters shrink when people realize how very different their lives would be without the very thing they protest against. I'm *all* for voicing one's political opinions, as long as you've fully considered *all* the implications of the change you're asking for, and you're willing to make the sacrifices you'll inevitably have to make whenever massive change is introduced to a system. (This goes for all opinions, not just the anti-corporate ones being discussed currently.)

And before I get the responses that "it's about human rights violations" let's get clear on the fact that global corporations are not the only companies which commit such violations. Although smaller companies don't have the resources to hire a slew of people in a foreign county, I'm sure there is research out there to support the fact that small, local companies can commit violations just as large companies can. The difference, I think, is that often, the people whose rights are being violated live in places where the infractions aren't considered as awful in the workers' country as they are in the company's parent country. In some places, the workers are just so happy to have ANY job with ANY pay that they'd rather have a crappy job than no job. (Not that this justifies rights violations; it just gives some perspective on the parties involved on both sides...)

Many of our own US companies during the Industrial Revolution were guilty of the same human rights violations that global corporations are charged with now. The difference is that over the past 100 years, workers have fought to change things for themselves. Eventually, the companies realized they couldn't stay afloat without workers, and that's the only reason they changed their operations. The same thing is going to have to happen for these global corporations to change their operations. As long as they're making money, there is NO REASON for them to change. As long as they can get people to do the work at the price they're willing to pay, there's no reason to change. That's what the free market is about, and it operates all over the world, and no amount of political screaming is going to change that inevitable fact. If anything, I think the best course of action is to fight the corporations on two fronts: (a) consumer financial protest so that the corporation loses revenue, and (b) worker education in the places where they're being taken advantage of, so that the corporation has no workers to make products. That's what changed our own US companies, and that's far more likely to change today's companies as well.

And, in closing, don't forget that Austin itself appears very proud of its own global corporate monster, Dell Computer. (Well, Dell's actually located in Round Rock and Williamson County, but we all run together there...) Did you know that Dell has operations in Malaysia? Seems to me that this choice of location has everything to do with the lower cost of labor there. So while we're in arms because Fortune-X companies are meeting here this week, we ignore our own "evil" global corporations right in our back yards. Why? Because they made a bunch of us, or people we know, very very rich, very very young. So I see -- it's okay for a corporation to go global when the money's in our hands, isn't it? No reason to check out Dell's operations overseas, to see what they're paying their workers, or what factory conditions are like. (I have no idea what they're like and I've no information to incriminate Dell, I'm just raising the issue that nobody seems to question anything when they're reaping the rewards of it.)

So...that's all I have to say that directly relates to this week's political protests.

-w