Crackdown on Porn

[raphy]

Hi raphy,

Taken together, your two posts make my point better than I could - sure you'll live, no matter who's in government, but, as you imply, how you live could be very different.

f5

Not really. Unless I somehow end up being independantly wealthy, I figure I'll still have to get up, go to work, come home, go to bed.

I guess it depends what's important to you. Like the saying says, don't pet the sweaty things and don't sweat the petty things.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Is this fitting???????

 

[raphy]

I figure that I should add this, now that I'm done answering everyone's posts. I wanted to go back to the start and re-iterate exactly why I started posting on this thread, because I think that as the discussion heated up, (as is wont to do with people who believe passionately about a subject) the reasons why it started got somewhat lost along the way.

Normally, I stay out of political threads, because (as is obvious), I don't find it interesting or useful to discuss political issues. However, Dr. M said in his very first post:

I just wanted to bring this up to wave it in the face of all the people who didn't bother to vote in the last election, or who think voting doesn't matter, and who don't plan to vote in the next one either.

That's why I posted. I don't rag on people for choosing to vote, and I just wanted to stand up and speak up for the people who choose not to, since there's this perception that we're all bad, mean people who a) don't care about the country they live in (whether that's the US, or the UK, or France, or wherever) and b) don't even care that they live in a democratic country.

I do care about the country that I live in. I love Britain. I love being British. I love the US, too. Applying for dual citizenship is something that I'm seriously thinking about, once I've been here long enough to do so.

And I do care that I live in a democratic country. I like having the option of voting, even if I don't exercise it. Times may change and I may well change my opinion. I like having that option. One election year, I may think 'Hey, this time, it might make a difference' and I'll head on down to the polls. The next, I may change my mind again, and not vote.

That's all.

 

[raphy]

Is this fitting???????

Oh yes

Good ol' Tony.

In his defence, Britain does have very close ties with the US, politically, economically and culturally, and it would be pretty stupid for him, or whoever pushes his buttons, to piss off the US.

 

[RenzaJones]

please this all started with the November 2000 rigged US presidential election and has just degenerated from there. I voted and still I'm watching with horror as our country's government flipped the bird at international treaties designed to protect human rights and the environment, favoring military build-up and big oil instead not to mention their equally shady bedding with oil interests once having seized political power.

Do the math: in a seriously flawed, arguably corrupt, electoral process in which the majority of the population was too apathetic to even feign democratic pretenses, only 21% ended up granting Bush his newfound sweeping and absolute powers.

Call me old-fashioned, but that's just not my idea of democracy. It's a farce and a travesty. And it's guaranteed to get much worse.

With a lame-duck Congress, and Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate (plus the Supreme Court), it's clear military spending will skyrocket as domestic social services are slashed and the environment is pillaged. Any previous attempts to rein in corporate scandal and excess will be attacked as un-American (kiss the corporate-fraud targeting Sarbanes-Oxley Act goodbye, for one).

And that's the relatively good news.

As the US economy tanks, Bush pursues his oil-hegemony dreams in Iraq, creating a bloodbath for both Iraqi civilians and US service members, not to mention burning up hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars in the process.


Meanwhile, the Putins and Sharons of the world will see fit to continue oppressing their chosen targets, with full knowledge the US will turn a blind eye to their crimes against humanity in return for their own tacit approval of similar US actions. The Middle Eastern region will predictably destabilize, with dangerous political/economic consequences accompanied by untold human costs.

It's no wonder many normal people are feeling devastated and disillusioned right now, ready to draw back from this whole damn dysfunctional mess. However despite my earlier sarcasm I realize now is not the time.

The only chance to alter the current sorry state of events and prevent matters from getting much, much worse, is a vigilant and involved population. That's you and me - actively assuming responsibility on a daily basis to name this societal rollback for what it is, then confronting each step away from sanity, while presenting a more humane and equitable alternative. Unfortunately there is a canidate I really support in my heart of hearts but for me the lesser of two evils is better than no choice at all.

after reading through I realized I might have flown off the handle a bit take it with a grain of salt as I really have no wish to be engaged in a rabid debate with anyone at this point.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I was sleepy and being intellectually sloppy when I wrote the "heart" part. What I intended to say was simply that I won't back someone just because I think they're going to win.

LOL,

No apologies neccessary, your talking to Miss. Drugged out of her head space cadet most of the time. I know how things sometimes don't come out quite as you meant



-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, I will vote for Kerry mainly as an anti-Bush vote. Would you let me (us) know what you think the plusses might be if he is elected. Throw in the negatives if you want, but I want to have an idea to hope with (if at all possible).

Thanks, Perdita

Well Dita, I suspect with Kerry you will get your typical mixed bag of Democratic goodies.

The first thing you will see is a unilateral withdrawl of our troops from Iraq in the most expedient way possible.

The anti-gay marriage amendment will probably die for at least a while.

You will get your typical shift from a foerign policy first executive to a domestic issue first executive.

The most sentient thing to remember is even if Kerry wins, unless there is a major shift in the house & senate he will be in the same boat Clinton was, bucking a stacked deck. Expect to see a good number of vetos on bills with heavy emphasis on the religious right's agenda. The house & senate will pass them, even knowing they will be vetoed in the hopes of drumming up their core support for 2008.

On the up side, they don't have the majority needed to overide a veto most likely so you may see a loosening up of their moral crusade in order to get anything done.

Perhaps the biggest thing from a personal point of view will be the removal of John Asscroft as AG and a probable loosening up of the persecutory nature of the justice department.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Colly, thanks so much. I do have hope now and nothing will prevent my voting. P.

 

[rgraham666]

Renza? Well said, young lady.

I've been knocking various things said on this and the war thread and this thought occurred to me.

A lot of people paid the ultimate price so that we would be able to have our say in the way our countries are run.

By not voting, are we not disrespecting their memories? And sacrifices?

 

[raphy]

Renza? Well said, young lady.

I've been knocking various things said on this and the war thread and this thought occurred to me.

A lot of people paid the ultimate price so that we would be able to have our say in the way our countries are run.

By not voting, are we not disrespecting their memories? And sacrifices?

I don't believe so. As I've said before, I was all set to become one of those people that go to war for their country. Albeit in a fighter jet, but a member of the armed services, no less.

I don't want the choice of whether or not I'm allowed to vote taken away from me and if that was threatened by another country's invasion, I'd go to war for my country over it.

It's a well-known saying, but I forget who said it first

"I don't vote myself, but I'll defend until my death your right to do so"

 

[panty_inspector]

renza.....you expressed my sentiments to a "T"

maybe i'm crazy, but i think the actions of the smallest, most ignored members of society can have a tremendous effect (i.e., rosa parks) on the social fabric..

..and i ain't no hippie!

i vote for a lot of reasons, not least among them being for people who want(ed) to, but were unable to throughout history. whether my vote makes that big a difference is ultimately not the reason i go to the polls.

 

[SlickTony]

You think trains wouldn't still run? Electricity wouldn't still be made at the power plants? Water, heat, those services would instantly stop? I'd wager that 99% of people would still continue with their daily lives.

Remember that the Italians thought Mussolini was aces at first, because under him, "the trains ran on time."

 

[Pure]

Without endorseing raphy's philosophy or his politics (or lack thereof) it's true that his lack of vote made/makes no difference. And there is a right-ward drift of the country (US), that his vote would/will not stop.

In another sense, 'no vote' is saying, 'it doesn't matter which,' -- a view which is certainly defensible. Democrats have gone meddling overseas, a Buckley's National Review calls the Bush approach "Neo Wilsonian." In Britain, either ruling party will be pro American.

Obviously there 'exemplary' people whose voting influences others, but r is probably not one, so the 'what if everyone did?' is answerable by 'everyone won't.'

to Panty: But in fact the chances of r being a 'rosa parks' are very small. (Or of being the flapping-winged butterfly in Brazil).

I'd say, if you want to influence an election, or 'fight the religious right' (Colly) you should go work in a district where the liberal or civil-liberties conservative might win (where it's not a shoo in for either party) and help get out the vote. Or write a book, like Al Franken did.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Pure]

From Cloudy's posting,

From CNN. so it is said.

"I saw some war heroes ... John Kerry is not a war hero," said John O'Neill, a Houston lawyer who joined the Navy's Coastal Division 11 two months after the future senator left Vietnam. "He couldn't tie the shoes of some of the people in Coastal Division 11."

ONeill, then, didn't serve with Kerry, nor was he in Vietnam at the same time. No direct knowledge.

It's scarcely surprising that Republicans could find an ex soldier against Kerry. ONeill and others resent the anti war activity and in particular the allegations of atrocities. Probably the majority of them were true, but Kerry has toned down that rhetoric, though his opponents havent.

Anyway, the Navy record is mostly released now, and Kerry looks good to excellent in reviews, and clearly voluteered for at least a while to put himself in harm's ways. GWB served his country is utterly mysterious and undocumented ways, which to be fair, were among the dodges used by many sons of the rich and well connected (though not Kerry).

What does any of this mean, Cloudy? There's going to be a lot of mudslinging, and Reps want to sell GWB as 'tough on [you name it]'. We'll see how he reacts as Iraq gets 'tough on him.', though it's not his blood or his rich cronies' sons at stake.

At least Reagan, for all his stupidity, chose Grenada as a place to invade and 'free.' Thatcher, the Falklands. GWB-- or the guys pulling the strings, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.-- are more ambitious.
They don't understand *symbolism*: Take down something _representing_ your opponent, or evil. Something convenient.

Realistically Cloudy, how optimistic are you about establishing freedom and democracy in Iraq?

I suspect Republicans are already working on selecting scapegoats (for 'losing' Iraq): who would that be?

J.

 

[shereads]

I don't rag on people for choosing to vote, and I just wanted to stand up and speak up for the people who choose not to, since there's this perception that we're all bad, mean people who a) don't care about the country they live in (whether that's the US, or the UK, or France, or wherever) and b) don't even care that they live in a democratic country.

Nothing that dramatic, honey. Passive and maybe a little naive, but not bad or mean.

I was reminded of your posts to this thread by something a good friend said yesterday about the last presidential election. His attitude three years ago was a bit like yours; he did vote, but he didn't think the outcome would affect his life much.

He reminded me that the day afer the election, I had said I was "terrified" for the future of this country and the world under Bush/Cheney - that there would almost certainly be another war with Iraq; and that after Ashcroft was named Attorney General, I had said his appointment would be disastrous for civil liberties. He had thought I was overreacting at the time. Yesterday he said, "You were right about all of it. How did you know?"

I knew because I bothered to know. I read voracoiusly about Cheney and the neoconservative agenda in foreign policy (the "American century," the new colonialism) and about Bush's apparent ineptitude and dishonesty (the string of failed businesses that somehow netted him millions even though his investors lost everything; the SEC connections that allowed him to get away with his own Enron at Harkin Energy); I had read enough about his appointees to Interior and the EPA to know that the environment was about to be raped and pillaged to an extent that James Watt only dreamed of, and that John Ashcroft believes he's on a mission from God to make the rest of us stop reading dirty stories, fornicating without benefit of marriage, and of course, dancing.

If you knew all of that and didn't vote, I'm amazed. If you knew and voted for them, you wanted what we got, including Iraq and the Patriot Act and the crackdown on porn.

If you didn't know, you could have; the evidence was there, in the history of the individuals involved and the unprecedented fundraising machine that elected them.

And if the individuals in office don't matter, as you say they don't, then why were so many people, including me, able to predict that if Bush/Cheney were elected, we would invade Iraq, see an attack on civil liberties in service of the religious right, have a fucked economy, and see the Environmental Protection Agency turned into a joke?

It sucks being right sometimes.

Caring too much certainly sucks.

Maybe your way is best. Your children won't have the freedom you have now if this administration has its way, but they can worry about that when they reach voting age. Your children will already have to pay for the Bush/Cheney tax cuts, (unless you're incredibly wealthy, in which case they'll be fine.)

Your taxes will be used to kill a certain number of people in your name, but some of them will probably deserve it, and their children are only collateral damage. But at least you won't get heartburn every time you read how little people know or care about the evil these people are inflicting on the world - and intended to, all along.

A note on whether we'd have gone to war under Al Gore: There's absolutely no reason why he would have invaded Iraq in response to 9/ll, since he (1) would not have had Chalabi on the payroll and therefore wouldn't have believed there were Weapons of Mass Destructon or a link with al Queda, and (2) he would not have come into office with an invasion of Iraq already in his plans.

 

[neonlyte]

Shereads
Thank you, I share your sentiment though my personal 'terror' extends beyond your countries current decisions to the future - practicing deceit becomes easier with practice.

Mahatma Gandi said, 'First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.' I am no longer sure it is possible to 'win' in the US - xenephobic attitudes appear to be hardening, remarkable in a country largely populated by immigrants, but that is another discussion.

Have you read John Pilger - The New Rulers of the World, a little heavy on rhetoric but slaying the myth of 'politics'. Eminently respected, winner of countless awards for 'telling it like it is' and regarded as a 'loose cannon'. Seems we just do not want to listen.

For a Pythonesque view, I include the following link to a Guardian article by Terry Jones, strictly tongue in the cheek, but stings like the truth.
Terry Jones Medical Histories

NL

 

[KenJames]

Nothing that dramatic, honey. Passive and maybe a little naive, but not bad or mean.

Very well put. Individuals do matter, even if raphy doesn't believe that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Without endorseing raphy's philosophy or his politics (or lack thereof) it's true that his lack of vote made/makes no difference. And there is a right-ward drift of the country (US), that his vote would/will not stop.

In another sense, 'no vote' is saying, 'it doesn't matter which,' -- a view which is certainly defensible. Democrats have gone meddling overseas, a Buckley's National Review calls the Bush approach "Neo Wilsonian." In Britain, either ruling party will be pro American.

Obviously there 'exemplary' people whose voting influences others, but r is probably not one, so the 'what if everyone did?' is answerable by 'everyone won't.'

to Panty: But in fact the chances of r being a 'rosa parks' are very small. (Or of being the flapping-winged butterfly in Brazil).

I'd say, if you want to influence an election, or 'fight the religious right' (Colly) you should go work in a district where the liberal or civil-liberties conservative might win (where it's not a shoo in for either party) and help get out the vote. Or write a book, like Al Franken did.

Just my 2 cents.

It takes heavy drugs for me to go to the grocery store. Working in a political campaign would land me in the Crisis ward. Writing a book would do little good, mostly because I am a total unknown & the odds of getting one published are slim.

My vote is my only vehicle to deffect change, along with sharing what I think and know with those I can influence.

-Colly

 

[KenJames]

Without endorseing raphy's philosophy or his politics (or lack thereof) it's true that his lack of vote made/makes no difference. And there is a right-ward drift of the country (US), that his vote would/will not stop.

In another sense, 'no vote' is saying, 'it doesn't matter which,' -- a view which is certainly defensible. Democrats have gone meddling overseas, a Buckley's National Review calls the Bush approach "Neo Wilsonian." In Britain, either ruling party will be pro American.

If I appeared to be taking raphy to task for not voting, that was unintentional. If someone doesn't take the time and trouble to inform themselves on the issues and candidates, I would prefer they not vote.

The view "it doesn't matter which" translates into "I don't give a shit!" There is no difference between Bush and Gore only to a person who doesn't care about abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, religious rights, the environment, our relations with other countries, . . . or to someone who's really not paying attention.

It may be true that some individual's votes may not make a difference. Colly doesn't feel she can influence New York presidential elections and I know Texas will go Republican, but we vote anyway. It may be more important in other states. Remember, Gore won the popular vote and was defeated by extremely narrow margins in several states, not just Florida.

With only about 20% of the potential electorate actually voting and many races being 50-50, that means 10% of the people are deciding how things will be run. The remaining 80% are certainly entitled to their non-choice, but the result is our current highly dysfunctional political system.

 

[SlickTony]

When I found out that all the meds my son has to take had effectively aborted his chances of a military career, I was at first rather sad. After all, it's an option he can't take, a door locked shut to him. The military uses meteorolgists. And they provide education and loans and stuff. My daughter was heavily courted by everybody except the Coast Guard, which isn't regular military (having actually had real telephone conversations with recruiters didn't prevent Selective Services later on from trying to get ugly with her because she hadn't signed up, so I had to write them and 'splain she was a girl).

In light of what's going down now, I'm glad. And I figure if the military ever does change its policy toward ADD-type meds, it'll have the worst possible implications. It'll mean their regular forces are so completely engaged and stretched thin they're actually going to want him. You wouldn't think that a meteorologist would be in that much danger, but I think the wars of the future are going to have extremely mobile and movable fronts.

 

[cloudy]

The view "it doesn't matter which" translates into "I don't give a shit!" There is no difference between Bush and Gore only to a person who doesn't care about abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, religious rights, the environment, our relations with other countries, . . . or to someone who's really not paying attention.

I beg to differ.

Sometimes the difference between two candidates seems so minor that it honestly doesn't matter which. Doesn't mean you don't give a shit, just means that either one, to you, would be fine (or not so, depending on your point of view).

"I don't give a shit" truly means what it says. It implys that that you don't care about a candidates views or history because that candidate would be interchangeable with the neighborhood drunk, as far as you're concerned.

There have been times, for me, when it truly didn't matter to me which candidate won, but rarely have I felt like "I didn't give a shit."

My views may be unpopular, and that's fine with me.....live and let live, I say, as far as politics is concerned. But, the two situations are very different.

Just an aside: it continues to amaze me that the people who stand up and holler "Gore!" the loudest are people that have never lived anywhere he held any office but the nominal one of vice president. Sheesh........

 

[KenJames]

I beg to differ.

Sometimes the difference between two candidates seems so minor that it honestly doesn't matter which. Doesn't mean you don't give a shit, just means that either one, to you, would be fine (or not so, depending on your point of view).

"I don't give a shit" truly means what it says. It implys that that you don't care about a candidates views or history because that candidate would be interchangeable with the neighborhood drunk, as far as you're concerned.

There have been times, for me, when it truly didn't matter to me which candidate won, but rarely have I felt like "I didn't give a shit."

My views may be unpopular, and that's fine with me.....live and let live, I say, as far as politics is concerned. But, the two situations are very different.

Just an aside: it continues to amaze me that the people who stand up and holler "Gore!" the loudest are people that have never lived anywhere he held any office but the nominal one of vice president. Sheesh........

Maybe my statement "The view 'it doesn't matter which' translates into 'I don't give a shit!'" was overly broad. I don't vote in every race for local offices, although I try to keep up even at that level.

On the other hand, if someone claims they don't vote because there is never ever any significant difference between any candidates, I conclude that person simply doesn't care.

As for specifics, is there any difference between Bush and Gore on abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, religious rights, the environment, our relations with other countries or a number of other issues?

I mostly picked Bush and Gore as an example because the 2000 presidential election demonstrated that a small number of votes can change the outcome and because there were significant differences, at least to me, between the candidates.

Incidentally, I'm not hollering for Gore, loudly or softly. I voted for him because he wasn't Bush.

No, I've never lived in Tennessee, which I believe is the only place Gore has held office, aside from Vice President. I do live in Texas, where Bush was governor. That's the biggest reason why I voted for "not-Bush."

 

[cloudy]

No, I've never lived in Tennessee, which I believe is the only place Gore has held office, aside from Vice President. I do live in Texas, where Bush was governor. That's the biggest reason why I voted for "not-Bush."

Exactly the way I voted, but flipped - "not-Gore."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Exactly the way I voted, but flipped - "not-Gore."

Didn't live in Tenn., but went to school with plenty who did. Not one, not a single one had a good thing to say about Al Gore. Granted I ran with a pretty conservative crowd, but the fact he couldn't carry his home state dose seem to indicate the opinion was widley held.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Didn't live in Tenn., but went to school with plenty who did. Not one, not a single one had a good thing to say about Al Gore. Granted I ran with a pretty conservative crowd, but the fact he couldn't carry his home state dose seem to indicate the opinion was widley held.

-Colly

McCain didn't carry Arizona, his home state, during the primaries. Between him and Bush, who would you really rather have as the figurehead of our country and your political party?