Quick reply, as I have to work.

First of all: Splitty, don't leave, life can't ever be the same without you!!!!!!!!

Second, Dayliner. While I totally agree that Klein's fixed set of ideas is counterproductive, I think she has an important point on the current issue: economic shock-therapy in Iraq. And I wanted to point out that it is not actually working very well in the former East Block either. Well, that is an understatement. And the social and political unrest which is growing out of shock-therapy both in Iraq and in the East-Block may well become a very dangerous threat to stability in Europe, which is where I live. So I don't like it.

In the US there is a very broad accept of free-market policy, and a wide belief that it is the way to growth. Here, that would be a very radical point of view. The consensus is that market should be controlled and countered through political and social institutions. So in practice, in Europe and in the ME, you have countries where the social security is liberal and generous right next to countries being crushed by shock therapy. It's just not nice.

quote:

---

BTW, I never said that voting/elections were "not important."

---

Yeah, sorry, inelegant phrasing on my part.

I do hope that talk of a break is an empty threat, Mr Coil, for all the obvious reasons. But as it probably isn't I guess I won't have the chance, at least for a while, to ask why you believe yourself to be the board's political pariah.

Enjoy your time away.

At the risk of exacerbating a somewhat acrimonious discussion, I think the problem might be one of interpreting the intentions of democracy. While it's obvious that judicial review has affected many positive changes, it's equally true that judges appointed for life by elected officials (themselves generally voted for by a minority of the electorate) are in fact several steps away from being directly accountable to the people. As government being directly accountable to the people is paramount in a democracy - at least formally - I can understand the point that progress proceeding from judicial review is less than ideally democratic.

However, it is equally valid to point out that judicial review is uniquely able to see to the long term interests of the nation exactly because they are appointed for life and very difficult to recall. I think splitcoil demonstrated this quite aptly. In fact, as he also pointed out, our entire system is build upon these kinds of prima facia antidemocratic power checks, e.g., the Supreme Court overturning segregation laws in the South that most folks down there favored. The overarching idea is that such systems are necessary to safeguard the health of a democracy for all people and in long term.

Nonetheless, the problem we have nowadays, at least as I see it, is that our judiciary and our executive (which since Lincoln has wielded much more direct power than most folks realize and probably more than initially intended by the Founders) have been hijacked by a small group of people with a radical agenda, and agenda not fully understood by most people and abhorred by many who do in fact understand it.

I'm not going to defend the last statement above; it's clear that there are few fence sitters on this issue. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that the present regime's agenda wasn't a radical departure from both their party's and the nation's history. Let's say that represented a somewhat toned down version of the sentiments behind the 1992 election and the Republican's Contract With (on?) America. Even then, the Congress is nearly evenly split, the last presidential vote the closest in our history. Clearly, the nation did not offer the current regime an unequivocal mandate in 2000, nor has one emerged now. Yet this regime has ruled as if they had the support of the vast majority of people. And this is not only reflected in the legislation they and their elected representatives in Congress have passed. More importantly, the regime's executive orders and judicial nominations have reflected their radical agenda. This means that the less-than-democratic (i.e., not elected) portions of our government are increasingly in the hands of people willing to carry out this regime's radical, unmandated agenda.

Which brings me back to the problem of the intentions of democracy. Judicial review has worked well in the past, but the judiciary is increasingly "stacked" with judges who directly subvert the very instruments of democracy: allowing the Justice Dept (itself acting by executive fiat) to run roughshod over civil liberties, even ones explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights; permitting the Republican party to illegally germander vast sections of the important states; most importantly, refusing to hold the current regime accountable for secret decisions that affect us all, e.g., the development of the White House's energy policy, refusing to force the regime to release key documents detailing how our money is spent or our security executed. It goes nearly without saying that the regime's direct executive appointees in Justice, the EPA, et al., have acted in direct contradiction to the will of many, perhaps a majority of people in this country.

It comes down to this: what can you do about a group of people who use the very mechanisms of democracy to sidestep the expression of the popular will and undermine the democratic process itself, thus insuring that this subversion is made a permanent feature of our governance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by vecna:
As far as I see it, if I vote for Kerry, I get the same thing as I get if I vote vore Bush and vice versa. If I vote for the Greens (which I can't do anyway) I have no hope of seeing said candidate in office. I am most literally (as far as I see it) given no choice in the matter.

---

Dude. Democracy is the opiate of the masses. Haven't you read Groucho Marx?

I agree DS, but I also agree that we should consider DP's question: what do we do to prevent those necessary un-democratic checks being used to subvert the democratic process entirely?

(Not saying the US is at that point, of course.)

well, how convenient, the timing of the assault weapon ban being lifted? who wants to go to the gunshow and buy some kalishnikovs with me this weekend?

quote:

---

The problem I have with the above is that once the people have finished talking about potential courses of action a decision has to be made and enforced.

---

Yeah, in the current design of things, that seems to be the case huh? I submit, however, that this is a view of humanity that assumes people are inherently evil. See, there have been democracies in the past that haven't required anything other than group consensus... and group consensus is reached like 99.9% of the time in these kinds of democracies. There is no need to beat people into submission.

Admitedly, what I am talking about here is the phemonena of band-organization in which there are, perhaps not more than 50 individuals involved. They are politically autonomous and reach consensus through talking. It works... but can it work with 260 million people rather than 50 individuals? I guess the answer to that question depends on how optimistic you are.

I really believe that the current system of doing things is a malicious feedback loop that spells our own doom. The longer we give people reasons to steal things, for instance, and force into them the idea that they HAVE to steal things in order to have a decent life the more theft will continue. You see, by attacking the criminal, one is attacking the symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. ITs the same way with democracy here in the United States. By voting AT ALL, I am trying to deal with a symptom of the problem (viz. that we have a very very evil regime in power) not the problem itself (viz. that our democracy itself is busted).

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the real issue... or one of them. The issue is the United States' undying and unquenchable desire to attack the symptoms and not the diseases. Same thing is going on with the 'war on terror(ism)." We kill people rather than killing the reasons they are pissed off in the first place.

/end rant

quote:

---

That and I am bitter... and getting older by the minute.

---

At least you're not a crack addict. Could be worse, you know.

Yeah, thanks. Now I feel all better.

I'm just amazed at the amount to angst shown over this election. Amazed and baffled as well, you'd think the US really was going to invade Canada if Bush wins. Hell, you'd think that Kerry is the one annointed of God to stop the Evil Ones. This won't be the last US election, there isn't going to be a motherfucking theocracy. Jeez people, get a grip on yourselves, your starting to sound squirrelier than that old Clinton haters.

quote:

---

This won't be the last US election, there isn't going to be a motherfucking theocracy

---

Some of us aren't so sure of that. Unfortunately, some of us saw 9/11 coming five years ahead of time as well and were derided by their family and friends as paranoid then too.

I wonder how conservative, good middle class German Jews felt in 1932. I imagine they had similar conversations mostly ending in, "It can't happen here, not now in this day and age. civilization is on the march, we can't turn back time anymore."

quote:

---

...you'd think the US really was going to invade Canada if Bush wins.

---

Hey wait a minute, he isn't? I'm definitely not voting for President Bush the Younger now.

Unfortunately, not really. President Bush the Younger has several tools at his disposal - legal challanges to the vote, suspension of the vote or even delaying the inauguration because of an increased threat or actual terrorist attack.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'd give it a 25% chance given how much the current regime stands to lose if President Bush the Younger is not elected.

The bottom line is that the mechanisms for this are in place, and that's not a situation we've had before.

vec, splitters: from what i can tell it's a sign of respect if they take you seriously enough to argue points with you. count yourself lucky. some of us can't make it past comic relief.

Oh, Bush doesn't have to actually believe. The legislation he supports and the people he's appointed (or attempted to appoint) to the judiciary are there to appease his base - and those people are, pardon my French, fucking relgious nuts. Their agenda is out in the open: US law should be based on their interpretation of scripture. So long as these people represent a depenedable and large bloc of votes, Bush and his cronies will pander to them.

I should have clarified my above two posts. We don't even need a Red Alert and the cancelation of the inauguration. A deftly manupulated election and four more years of this regime's appointments and executive orders, four more years of monopartisan legsliation, and you won't need to speculate about a theocracy. The only difference is that we'll still have the Sopranos, just without all that nasty sex.

And, re: Kerry being rich and equally beholden. He's not beholden to the Crazy Christian Bloc, his last ditch pandering to undecides who like to see a man with a faith notwithstanding. And rich and in the pocket of corporations? Sure. The critical difference is he will arrest, at least temporarly, the hijacking of our democracy and the process of democracy itself by the radicals now in office.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dog Soldier:
I'm just amazed at the amount to angst shown over this election. Amazed and baffled as well, you'd think the US really was going to invade Canada if Bush wins. Hell, you'd think that Kerry is the one annointed of God to stop the Evil Ones. This won't be the last US election, there isn't going to be a motherfucking theocracy. Jeez people, get a grip on yourselves, your starting to sound squirrelier than that old Clinton haters.

---

OTOH, Bush (and his regime) has done a lot to hamstring
existing natural and cultural resource laws, all the while
paying them lipservice. These are things I hold dear. Most
of his policies that he's pushed through also seem to be,
at best, hamstringing any real progress, all the while
paying them lipservice. It seems that his Christianity is
not the only thing that's shallow and I think it would be
easiest to repair the damage he's caused now than given
another four years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by William Gibson:
This isn't the election in which to make the quixotic but satisfying point that you'd really rather vote Green, or the quixotic but satisfying point that you'd really rather not have to vote for any more white men in tight blue suits at all.

---

If this blog entry isn't directed at people who feel like I do (given the Gibson's propensity to quote people from the board... I take it he is reading it thus), then everyone can disregard this post.

I'm sorry if some may think that attitudes like my own are overly romantic and not pragmatic. Since this is apparently the case, I feel the need to qualify my argument... for others' sake, not my own. But, that said another quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by William Gibosn:
This is an election in which to vote for *the greater likelihood of there being more elections in the future*.

---

I see a speck of contradiction in the above quotes. "Quixotic" implies some form of romanticism that is over-the-top or unwarranted. The quote directly above sounds much like something from our late pal Bill Cooper, of Behold a Pale Horse fame (et al.). If I am exagerating the decline of our democracy, the Mr. Gibson is guilty of calling the kettle black. Q.E.D.

But, then again, I feel like this is all my fault and I wasn't being clear in my original post. So, let me fix that now before I get ambiguously lambasted by one of my idols (viz. Mr. Gibson) again. (anyone starting to get at why I was so pissed off earlier?)

So, Iraq seems to be a popular topic now, so I'll run with that. Let's imagine that Bush and his cadre of evil get re-elected. What Bush is going to do is keep our presence in Iraq at, essentially, what it is now. Yes, 1100+ Americans have died since the "end of the war" in Iraq, but that is of no consequence. More will die, that's the way of war. The real consequence is that all of the radical Muslims (et al.) in that area of the world, people who would be willing to commit attrocities inside U.S. borders, are keeping the fight on Iraqi soil. They have a nice, big, close military target (viz. most of the American Army etc.) and can just vent their aggressions right close to home.

Now imagine that our chin-endowed friend Kerry gets elected. Kerry wants to take some other approach to this Iraq farce. He thinks he can start bringning people home much sooner that Bush can. He wants the U.S. to scale down the occupation force and get our boys home. That's great. However, for reasons outlined above, that means several things will happen: 1) The people in that part of the world who want to kill Americans will find lots less targets to attack (and for that matter will be able to concentrate greater forces in smaller areas, making it harder for our guys to stay alive) and B) those that aren't satisfied could potentially redirect their affections to U.S. soil (which is almost as open to the rest of the world now as it was before 9/11).

Now, this is just one example of the shitty mess that I, as a voter, have to deal with. There are about a million other such comparisons that can be made. For instance, the fact that we have half-a-dozen closet Nazis in this administration doesn't make it any easier. Furthermore, I live in a state that is, according to the polls today, something like 99% Republican. I can't write in votes (fascism!) so what I am supposed to do?

Kerry isn't going to get anything DONE if he is in office for 4 years. He still has the House and the Senate (both Republican dominated) to deal with. Bush is going to choke freedom wherever he sees it. Kerry is *almost* as far to the right as Bush is (pour exempla see the 'Gay Marriage' non-issue). Bush is a complete idiot, sure, but he is backed by one of the smartest men in the country (Cheney) even if this man is the Devil himself.

One of my original points was that our 'democracy' goes on by itself. It has its own internal power supply. The fact that Bush and Cheney are going to be re-elected doesn't mean that our democracy is 'done.' There will be more elecetions, for sure, and the real question is along the lines of: "How much damage can this administration really do in 4 years, knowing that they don't have to worry about re-election again?"

I *almost* don't want to vote. I really don't see the point. And when I say that I am not garnering some 'quixotic' argument or something. It's a matter of facts, not a matter of ... well, anything else. When my state carries Republican on judgement day, and I have voted for Kerry ... my vote most literally does not count. Because all of our electoral votes will go right to the Republican camp. Period. That's how the system works.

I'd appreciate not being shined on like I don't know what I am talking about. This Kansan doesn't get to make a difference, is not going to be represented in the election, and is really pissed about it.

/done

(applauds)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pauline:
Sure, if you don't want to vote, that's OK. Would you consider voting on my behalf?

---

I think that might be illegal.

...and, FWIW, if you said 'given these circumstances (being in Kansas), plus the serious misgivings I have about the system and Kerry, I choose not to vote', I'd back you up 100%. It's when you advocate not voting for others, who might not be in that situation - or when your words can be construed that way - that I'll argue with you (respectfully, I hope), because I believe voting is a responsibility as well as a right.

Do I wish the system allowed your vote to mean something? Absolutely. But if your perspective sways someone whose votes *does* make a difference not to cast it...

But Gromit,

It *clearly* says on Bush's "Record of Achievement" on whitehouse.gov that

"Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the United States has waged two of the swiftest and most humane wars in history (Afghanistan: Video) and (Iraq: Video). Fifty million people have been liberated from two of the world's most brutal and aggressive regimes – and the terrorists' foreign operating bases are being taken away."

[insert barf emoticon]