Re: Fact checking
On Wednesday 2004 April 28 23:30, Bob Jonkman wrote: In Canada we have the option to decline to vote. Go to the polling station, register your name, take the ballot, then tell the clerk that you decline to vote. This indicates that you believe that no-one on the ballot is a suitable candidate for office. The ballot is counted, but none of the candidates gets a vote. I noticed something similar when I voted in the primary this year. I voted in the Republican primary, and there were *two* choices for president: Bush and Undecided (or maybe it was Uncommitted). Anyway, my question: can you decline to vote on an office-by-office basis, or is it all or nothing? -- Shawn K. Quinn
Re: Fact checking
OK, I admit that I rolled that scheme off the top off my head in about 34 seconds, and that it may well have a hundred holes ready to be shot through it at any time. Still, anything that gets poeple thinking about their vote and perhaps then, by association, their politics, I count as valuable... Justin wrote: If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent? If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or more informed. It might even increase stupid voting patterns by encouraging dumb people to form cliques. They won't want to appear dumb to their friends as a result of voting for the wrong person, and groupthink is bad for elections. True, there might be an effect whereby voters just go with whatever is deemed popular, just to ensure they keep their vote without having to think about it too much. But seeing the way (in the UK at least) that the sheeple flock towards whichever leader and/or newspaper is shouting the loudest this week anyway, I'm not sure it's that different to the current state of affairs. Groupthink forms outside the voting station - the pub, workplaces, the gym, wherever. Whether or not people must or musn't vote doesn't change that much, I think. The MPs, on the other hand, love groupthink. Quantity, not quality. .g
Re: Fact checking
This is what Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said about Re: Fact checking on 28 Apr 2004 at 19:37 Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable space and eh, instant feedback. There is an abstention option. The poll administrator checks off your name when you show up, so someone knows that you voted. You don't have to choose anyone on your ballot. You can either toss it in the garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the fiber-starved voting machine. But then the ballot is spoiled, and not counted. In Canada we have the option to decline to vote. Go to the polling station, register your name, take the ballot, then tell the clerk that you decline to vote. This indicates that you believe that no-one on the ballot is a suitable candidate for office. The ballot is counted, but none of the candidates gets a vote. This ensures that you don't accidentally elect an unsuitable candidate with a protest vote, ie. selecting the lesser of two evils. By declining to vote you elect neither of the two evils. I'm not sure what happens when there are more declined ballots than votes for a candidate. Certainly it should draw some media attention to the option of declining to vote -- I find that very few people know about it. It sure caused a stir at our polling booth! -- -- -- -- Bob Jonkman
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow (2004-04-29 02:07Z) wrote: Thus spake Justin [28/04/04 15:41]: : Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill... Proxy vote. I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year. I hadn't looked it up before, but it seems most countries with compulsory voting have exemptions for debilitating conditions. Assuming that's the sort of scheme you're proposing, proxy voting is unnecessary. Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote. Semantics. If you're thrown in jail for failing to vote, is that a voting requirement? If you're threatened by a gangster with a machine gun, is that a requirement? Very few countries throw people in jail for failing to vote. Most states either fine violators or revoke their suffrage. IDEA.int considers that compulsory voting. You don't. http://www.idea.int/voter_turnout/Compulsory_Voting.htm : The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. : While that's certainly an improvement (by your metric), it doesn't : resolve the core issues. Not in the first year, no. And not in the second year, nor in the third. But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic voters -- the ones who don't care. Your plan would split current rare- or non-voters into two categories, the ones who are banned from voting due to apathy, and a second group whose members want to preserve future voting ability. I would guess that the latter would end up voting in Presidential elections, and would only care about the presidential candidates. That might make things worse, since such idiotic, uninformed voters might vote along party lines in other races on the same ballot. We have enough party-line voters at the moment. We don't need any more. Australia has mandatory voting. I think that's what you're arguing against I'm arguing against any sort of coercion - whether it's a loss of rights, being stuffed in a prison, or being beaten with a stick. You consider voting in Australia to be mandatory? The punishment is a fine, different from loss of suffrage but not necessarily more serious. : Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get : the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, : too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable : space and eh, instant feedback. This was apparently a set-up. Most places have abstention options of one sort or another. It doesn't matter that much how you abstain, whether you can tell them to keep the ballot, whether you can feed blank ballots into the machines, or whether you have to mark something. What do you gain by forcing people to go to the polls to mark abstain, eat their ballots, or otherwise effectively abstain after showing up? It would be a lot more logical to require voting if abstention wasn't an option, though there are still serious problems with mandatory voting. You seem intent on allowing people to express disinterest in who wins, but for some unknown reason you want their disinterest to be expressed within an arbitrarily-designed framework rather than allowing them the flexibility to vote, show up and abstain, or stay home. I suspect there's much disagreement as to whether abstention is included in the concept of voting. -- Not your decision to make. Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Bill, Beatrix
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! [...] I don't see any way to educate the mass public. Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? That way you cut out all those who really don't care, and provide an incentive for those who might. Nothing grabs attention like threatening to remove /privileges/, even if they don't actually get used. Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable space and eh, instant feedback. Or something. .g -- I have practysed lerned at my grete charge dispense to ordeyne this said book in prynte that every man may have them attones. - W. Caxton
Re: Fact checking
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:05:32PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27/04/04 17:18]: :All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you : consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the : eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a : difference. Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span will allow me. Oops, I guess I've used it all up. Bye now! These things all work in theory, but never in practice. You obviously have never done any door-to-door. People are quite often very interested. We've had fairly good success organizing people on local issues which affect them, like opposition to street widening. Voter registration is the same thing. Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! The mention was giving talks in libraries, which works fairly well. The local library is the logical meeting place for local groups to hold meetings and talks. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Fact checking
Thomas Shaddack (2004-04-28 18:32Z) wrote: What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe. Presidents don't pass laws. Presidential campaigns would be reduced to issues that are mutable (vulnerable?) to executive orders. Individual candidates for federal office can't pass laws either. You want to hold a Senator liable when his compatriots (even if they form the majority) don't support everything your senator supports? Nobody who understands the basics of U.S. government construction could possibly believe that a candidate's promise is a guarantee. It is merely a statement of ideology. What then, consequences for not attempting to effect promises? Who's to judge? -- Not your decision to make. Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Bill and Beatrix
Re: Fact checking
Graham Lally (2004-04-28 14:47Z) wrote: Damian Gerow wrote: I don't see any way to educate the mass public. Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not indicative of lack of desire to vote. The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. While that's certainly an improvement (by your metric), it doesn't resolve the core issues. If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent? If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or more informed. It might even increase stupid voting patterns by encouraging dumb people to form cliques. They won't want to appear dumb to their friends as a result of voting for the wrong person, and groupthink is bad for elections. Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable space and eh, instant feedback. There is an abstention option. The poll administrator checks off your name when you show up, so someone knows that you voted. You don't have to choose anyone on your ballot. You can either toss it in the garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the fiber-starved voting machine. -- Not your decision to make. Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Bill and Beatrix
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Justin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 15:41]: : Damian Gerow wrote: : I don't see any way to educate the mass public. : : Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote : if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? : : Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill : or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is : extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not : indicative of lack of desire to vote. Proxy vote. I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year. Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote. : The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. : While that's certainly an improvement (by your metric), it doesn't : resolve the core issues. Not in the first year, no. And not in the second year, nor in the third. But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic voters -- the ones who don't care. What this /won't/ have an effect on is mis-informed voting. People who vote because they've been paid to do so, or because some other influencing factor(s) got the voters out there, aside from knowing the candidates and voting for the one you honestly believe will do the best job. : If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent? : If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive : their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or : more informed. It might even increase stupid voting patterns by : encouraging dumb people to form cliques. They won't want to appear dumb : to their friends as a result of voting for the wrong person, and : groupthink is bad for elections. Australia has mandatory voting. I think that's what you're arguing against -- this is essentially a way to say, I'd rather not vote by not actually doing anything. It's perfect for the already lazy and apathetic folks. It forces nobody's hand, places no undue expectations on anyone, and doesn't bend the rules of democracy. It simply says that if you don't want to vote, fine, we just won't include you in the valid voters list. : Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get : the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, : too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable : space and eh, instant feedback. : : There is an abstention option. The poll administrator checks off your : name when you show up, so someone knows that you voted. You don't : have to choose anyone on your ballot. You can either toss it in the : garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians : on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the : fiber-starved voting machine. AFAIK, you can't toss your ballot out in Canada. And there's a certain way to mark it to 'abstain' -- not just drawing cartoons on it.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 11:40]: : Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the : candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span : will allow me. Oops, I guess I've used it all up. Bye now! : : These things all work in theory, but never in practice. : : You obviously have never done any door-to-door. People are quite often very : interested. We've had fairly good success organizing people on local issues : which affect them, like opposition to street widening. Voter registration is the : same thing. Actually, I /have/ done door-to-door. Granted, it's not extensive, but I have been involved in a few campaigns. In a good neighbourhood, we'd get about 3/4 of the people who would care enough or have enough time at that moment to listen/contribute. : Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's : reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the : candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! : :The mention was giving talks in libraries, which works fairly well. The : local library is the logical meeting place for local groups to hold meetings and : talks. Yes, it does, so long as you get people there. It's the getting people there that's difficult. I s'pose a door-to-door campaign advertising a speaking at the library would be best.
Re: Fact checking
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Tim Benham wrote: I bet people would start voting after that. If they don't, offer them two vials of crack! It's already being done; it's called political promises. The candidates are usually pretty high on that stuff. What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe.
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! [...] I don't see any way to educate the mass public. Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? That way you cut out all those who really don't care, and provide an incentive for those who might. Nothing grabs attention like threatening to remove /privileges/, even if they don't actually get used. Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable space and eh, instant feedback. Or something. .g -- I have practysed lerned at my grete charge dispense to ordeyne this said book in prynte that every man may have them attones. - W. Caxton
Re: Fact checking
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Tim Benham wrote: I bet people would start voting after that. If they don't, offer them two vials of crack! It's already being done; it's called political promises. The candidates are usually pretty high on that stuff. What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe.
Re: Fact checking
Thomas Shaddack (2004-04-28 18:32Z) wrote: What won't hurt could be making them liable for their promises, as they can be considered to be a contract with the voters. With specific penalties for not delivering the results in the specified timeframe. Presidents don't pass laws. Presidential campaigns would be reduced to issues that are mutable (vulnerable?) to executive orders. Individual candidates for federal office can't pass laws either. You want to hold a Senator liable when his compatriots (even if they form the majority) don't support everything your senator supports? Nobody who understands the basics of U.S. government construction could possibly believe that a candidate's promise is a guarantee. It is merely a statement of ideology. What then, consequences for not attempting to effect promises? Who's to judge? -- Not your decision to make. Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Bill and Beatrix
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 11:40]: : Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the : candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span : will allow me. Oops, I guess I've used it all up. Bye now! : : These things all work in theory, but never in practice. : : You obviously have never done any door-to-door. People are quite often very : interested. We've had fairly good success organizing people on local issues : which affect them, like opposition to street widening. Voter registration is the : same thing. Actually, I /have/ done door-to-door. Granted, it's not extensive, but I have been involved in a few campaigns. In a good neighbourhood, we'd get about 3/4 of the people who would care enough or have enough time at that moment to listen/contribute. : Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's : reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the : candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! : :The mention was giving talks in libraries, which works fairly well. The : local library is the logical meeting place for local groups to hold meetings and : talks. Yes, it does, so long as you get people there. It's the getting people there that's difficult. I s'pose a door-to-door campaign advertising a speaking at the library would be best.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Justin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28/04/04 15:41]: : Damian Gerow wrote: : I don't see any way to educate the mass public. : : Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote : if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? : : Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill : or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is : extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not : indicative of lack of desire to vote. Proxy vote. I did it for two 'invalid' relatives this year. Besides, this isn't requiring them to vote. : The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. : While that's certainly an improvement (by your metric), it doesn't : resolve the core issues. Not in the first year, no. And not in the second year, nor in the third. But in the fourth, you'll see a drastic drop in the number of apathetic voters -- the ones who don't care. What this /won't/ have an effect on is mis-informed voting. People who vote because they've been paid to do so, or because some other influencing factor(s) got the voters out there, aside from knowing the candidates and voting for the one you honestly believe will do the best job. : If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent? : If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive : their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or : more informed. It might even increase stupid voting patterns by : encouraging dumb people to form cliques. They won't want to appear dumb : to their friends as a result of voting for the wrong person, and : groupthink is bad for elections. Australia has mandatory voting. I think that's what you're arguing against -- this is essentially a way to say, I'd rather not vote by not actually doing anything. It's perfect for the already lazy and apathetic folks. It forces nobody's hand, places no undue expectations on anyone, and doesn't bend the rules of democracy. It simply says that if you don't want to vote, fine, we just won't include you in the valid voters list. : Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get : the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, : too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable : space and eh, instant feedback. : : There is an abstention option. The poll administrator checks off your : name when you show up, so someone knows that you voted. You don't : have to choose anyone on your ballot. You can either toss it in the : garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians : on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the : fiber-starved voting machine. AFAIK, you can't toss your ballot out in Canada. And there's a certain way to mark it to 'abstain' -- not just drawing cartoons on it.
Re: Fact checking
Graham Lally (2004-04-28 14:47Z) wrote: Damian Gerow wrote: I don't see any way to educate the mass public. Indeed, why bother? How about a system that removes your right to vote if you haven't exercised it in the last 3 elections? Requiring that adults vote is a terrible idea. While being deathly ill or otherwise unable to vote for three consecutive federal elections is extremely unlikely, the fact remains that failure to vote is not indicative of lack of desire to vote. The above proposal only requires 33% turnout among current non-voters. While that's certainly an improvement (by your metric), it doesn't resolve the core issues. If not voting is the sin you seek to prevent, why settle for 33 percent? If it is dumb voters you're trying to eliminate, requiring them to drive their dumb asses to the polls isn't going to make then any smarter or more informed. It might even increase stupid voting patterns by encouraging dumb people to form cliques. They won't want to appear dumb to their friends as a result of voting for the wrong person, and groupthink is bad for elections. Make sure there's a handy abstain option for those who want to get the point across about lack of choice, and maybe a space to say why, too. Then stick the (anonymous) reasons up in a publicly-viewable space and eh, instant feedback. There is an abstention option. The poll administrator checks off your name when you show up, so someone knows that you voted. You don't have to choose anyone on your ballot. You can either toss it in the garbage on your way out, or draw pictographs derogatory to politicians on non-critical areas of the ballot before feeding it to the fiber-starved voting machine. -- Not your decision to make. Yes. But it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Bill and Beatrix
Re: Fact checking
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:20:06PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a difference. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27/04/04 17:18]: :All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you : consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the : eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a : difference. Hi, Sir, my name is Bob and I'm here to educate you about all the candidates in the upcoming election that your eight second attention span will allow me. Oops, I guess I've used it all up. Bye now! These things all work in theory, but never in practice. Why bother putting something up in a library? Chances are, if someone's reading it there, they're already somewhat knowledgable about the candidates. Or heck, maybe they're even there to do /research/ on them! Grocery store posters? When was the last time you stopped to read one of those? Radio ads? What group of volunteers would have the dough to cough up enough to get a spot on a semi-popular radio station? One that's unbiased enough to /let/ you play a spot like what you'd want to play? I don't see any way to educate the mass public. The best option I've seen was when a couple of Canadians, frustrated at the options, started eating their ballots. They got arrested a few times, but I think the charges were dropped. At least that caught /some/ attention. The more shocking it is, the more attention it will grab, the more effect it will have, however short-term it may be. And the more I think of swapping crack for cracked votes, the more I like it.
Re: Fact checking
At 5:36 PM -0400 4/26/04, Damian Gerow wrote: : YMOIMV? Hum. I've never seen this before -- what's it stand for? Your Meaning Of Is May Vary... ;-) Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Fact checking
How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? Well, we could just tell them their lives would be much better under Kodos, rather than Kang. -TD From: Damian Gerow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fact checking Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:20:06 -0400 Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Fact checking
How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? Well, imagine if we could buy votes...I'd bet we could scrounge up a few hundred thousand votes for the price of a few vials of crack. Then imagine we 'elect' bin Laden as a Senator or something with these votes. I bet people would start voting after that. -TD From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fact checking Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:15:04 -0500 On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:20:06PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a difference. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey! _ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=hotmail/es2ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Re: Fact checking
[having problems with an MX record somewhere. Let's see if this works...] At 3:04 PM -0400 4/26/04, Damian Gerow parsed a sentence thusly: That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took initiative in creating it. Okay. I'll bite. Let's do a Rorschach test. Please parse *this* sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. :-) Too hard? How about this one: Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton... ;-) YMOIMV? Cheers, RAH -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ...if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up. -- Tom Lehrer
Re: Fact checking
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 08:20:06PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters? All of the above, but mostly door-to-door voter registration. When you consider that both klinton and dubbya were elected with only 13%-14% of the eligible voters, it wouldn't take all that many new voters to really make a difference. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil than the current president. THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother voting? After the events involving Vince Foster, Lon It was self defense, she threatened me with her baby Hioruchi(sp?), Janet Reno, and Monicagate, Dubbya Jr. seemed the lesser of two evils. Until 9.11.2001. At that point, Gore clearly became the lesser of two evils, but by that time, it was far too late to see it. How much of the public knew about the connections to Haliburton before election day? How much of the public knew about the Project for a New American Century? How much of the public knew about USA PATRIOT ACT and it's sequel? What's missing is some sort of vote out of office mechanism, a big great Undo vote as it were. There are no guarantees that if you vote for Scumbag #1 that s/he'll be less of a scumbag that Scumbag #2. When more than half the country doesn't want to do something, it shouldn't be done just because congress and POTUS decides it's in their pocketbook's interest, but where's the mechanism to stop it? Where's the recall vote? Where's the oversight committee that says When you ran for office you promised X,Y,Z and you're half in your term and haven't delivered. Where's the I want X% of my dollars to go to this issue, and 0% to go to that one option? Elections where you only chose between evil #1 and evil #2, are an ironic joke, and the ones laughing their way to the bank aren't those with your interests in mind.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake sunder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:38]: : Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a : /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser : evil : than the current president. : : THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the : lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother : voting? Okay, you've completely missed my point. I'll repeat it one last time, then I shall contribute no more to this inane diatribe: I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on converting the world to their belief system (...). I was pointing out that your one presented argument (in the e-mail I read) was completely not true. Al Gore did *not* claim to invent the Internet, and to use that false argument as a reason to dislike him is to be either purposefully dishonest, or honestly misled. I was simply correcting your facts, and suggesting you check them out before you believe everything you see/read in mass media. The rest of your arguments are simply your opinions, and all I have to say is: what little you knew of Bush and Gore /before/ the elections has no bearing on the amount of information available about them. Their histories (criminal, educational, political, and family) were all very publicly available. Just because you (and, dare I say, a vast majority of the American public) didn't want to do your research on your candidates, does not mean that the facts weren't there. You're also sadly, sadly mistaken in saying that there's only two options. I guess it shows that you didn't vote. - Damian
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Who you vote for is up to you. I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media. B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil than the current president. Mindlessly voting for anyone but bush is just as ignorant as voting midlessly for him.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:56]: : Who you vote for is up to you. I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm : just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media. : : B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: : http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ : : During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in : creating the Internet. Yes, that's exactly what he said: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took initiative in creating it. Two very different things. I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too far astray. : Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a : /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser : evil : than the current president. : : Mindlessly voting for anyone but bush is just as ignorant as voting : midlessly for him. Yes, that's about what I was saying. Mindless voting is, in some regards, worse than not voting at all. And it appears that's what sunder has done -- not voted, instead of mindlessly voted. But when all the facts, and the necessities to check the facts, are at your fingertips, there's no reason to be doing either. - Damian
Re: Fact checking
: B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: : http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ : : During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in : creating the Internet. Yes, that's exactly what he said: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took initiative in creating it. Two very different things. Now take it in context. Do you really believe that he didn't want people to think he was instrumental from the beginning (since he created it) in the Internet? Or that he was simply another GC, working off an architects plans? I think people took it the right way the first time. Sure, I agree its importance is way overblown; I mean, name one politician who *hasn't* taken credit for someone else's work. But don't be an apologist. If he wants to run for president, he's got to deal with his record, just like kerry (did I or didnt I throw away those medals) or bush (i know those national guard records are here somewhere). I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too far astray. Yeah, he was in there on John Postel's CC: list for RFC evaluations.
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on converting the world to their belief system (...). You, sir, are in great need of an enema. *PLONK*
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 16:01]: : Yes, that's exactly what he said: : : http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ : : That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took : initiative in creating it. Two very different things. : : Now take it in context. Do you really believe that he didn't want people to : think he was instrumental from the beginning (since he created it) in the : Internet? Or that he was simply another GC, working off an architects : plans? : : I think people took it the right way the first time. Sure, I agree its : importance is way overblown; I mean, name one politician who *hasn't* taken : credit for someone else's work. But don't be an apologist. If he wants to : run for president, he's got to deal with his record, just like kerry (did I : or didnt I throw away those medals) or bush (i know those national guard : records are here somewhere). Agreed, every politician has their own problems. I /personally/ don't believe that Mr. Gore was trying to take credit for 'inventing' the Internet. His wording is incredibly vague, and I agree that it could be taken as him trying to take credit for building up the Internet to the point it is today. But he'd have to be *incredibly* stupid to actually believe that he could get away with claiming he invented something that existed (albeit in various forms) years previous. My problem lays in the fact that not one person (save Gore himself) can verifiably know what Gores intentions were with that statement. The way he phrased the statement is tricky, and leaves it pretty open to interpretation. But I hold fast that he was /not/ saying he invented the Internet. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to get into a debate over what he said, although I guess that was unavoidable. I'm not trying to apologize for what he's said, nor am I trying to make excuses. If he's going to live in the public eye, he's got to either maintain an impeccable character, or suffer its flaws. My problem was that the statement /is/ vague, and the vagueness was then translated into 'inventing the Internet'. Which, again, isn't really all that true. Had sunder said, Al 'Creating The Internet' Gore, that would have been spot on, and I'd have chuckled. But he didn't, so it wasn't, so I didn't. : I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, : it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would : check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too : far astray. : : Yeah, he was in there on John Postel's CC: list for RFC evaluations. No, nor was I there for the developing of the blueprints, nor the chopping of the trees, nor the mixing of the mortar. But I still took initiative in building the house. Just as Gore took initiative in creating -- or rather, helping to create, or helping to fund the creation of -- the Internet. At this point, I concede that there's no way to tell the truth, and that continued discussion can't really progress anywhere. Al Gore munged his words*, and paid the price. End of story, and at this point, it doesn't much matter what he really meant -- he's still not the president, nor will he ever be. - Damian * = More than this once, I might add.
Re: Fact checking
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:12:40PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Agreed, every politician has their own problems. I /personally/ don't believe that Mr. Gore was trying to take credit for 'inventing' the Internet. His wording is incredibly vague, and I agree that it could be taken as him trying to take credit for building up the Internet to the point it is today. But he'd have to be *incredibly* stupid to actually believe that he could get away with claiming he invented something that existed (albeit in various forms) years previous. Good grief -- algore is fucking pathological liar. That was just one example among thousands. He can't even tell the truth about where and how he grew up. Gore the lessor of two evils? As much as I despise dubbya, I can't say I'd prefer gore -- but then I voted for Ralph, and will again. And voted libertarian the two elections before that. And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters?
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil than the current president. THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother voting? After the events involving Vince Foster, Lon It was self defense, she threatened me with her baby Hioruchi(sp?), Janet Reno, and Monicagate, Dubbya Jr. seemed the lesser of two evils. Until 9.11.2001. At that point, Gore clearly became the lesser of two evils, but by that time, it was far too late to see it. How much of the public knew about the connections to Haliburton before election day? How much of the public knew about the Project for a New American Century? How much of the public knew about USA PATRIOT ACT and it's sequel? What's missing is some sort of vote out of office mechanism, a big great Undo vote as it were. There are no guarantees that if you vote for Scumbag #1 that s/he'll be less of a scumbag that Scumbag #2. When more than half the country doesn't want to do something, it shouldn't be done just because congress and POTUS decides it's in their pocketbook's interest, but where's the mechanism to stop it? Where's the recall vote? Where's the oversight committee that says When you ran for office you promised X,Y,Z and you're half in your term and haven't delivered. Where's the I want X% of my dollars to go to this issue, and 0% to go to that one option? Elections where you only chose between evil #1 and evil #2, are an ironic joke, and the ones laughing their way to the bank aren't those with your interests in mind.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake sunder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:38]: : Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a : /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser : evil : than the current president. : : THAT, ultimately is the meta-point. You shouldn't have to vote for the : lesser evil, but when your choice is so vastly limited, why even bother : voting? Okay, you've completely missed my point. I'll repeat it one last time, then I shall contribute no more to this inane diatribe: I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on converting the world to their belief system (...). I was pointing out that your one presented argument (in the e-mail I read) was completely not true. Al Gore did *not* claim to invent the Internet, and to use that false argument as a reason to dislike him is to be either purposefully dishonest, or honestly misled. I was simply correcting your facts, and suggesting you check them out before you believe everything you see/read in mass media. The rest of your arguments are simply your opinions, and all I have to say is: what little you knew of Bush and Gore /before/ the elections has no bearing on the amount of information available about them. Their histories (criminal, educational, political, and family) were all very publicly available. Just because you (and, dare I say, a vast majority of the American public) didn't want to do your research on your candidates, does not mean that the facts weren't there. You're also sadly, sadly mistaken in saying that there's only two options. I guess it shows that you didn't vote. - Damian
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: Who you vote for is up to you. I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media. B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser evil than the current president. Mindlessly voting for anyone but bush is just as ignorant as voting midlessly for him.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 13:56]: : Who you vote for is up to you. I'm not telling you to vote for him, I'm : just correcting a pretty large non-truth propogated by American media. : : B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: : http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ : : During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in : creating the Internet. Yes, that's exactly what he said: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took initiative in creating it. Two very different things. I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too far astray. : Hey, I'm no fan of Tipper either. And I'm not saying that Al Gore was a : /good/ choice. But in retrospect, he probably would have been a lesser : evil : than the current president. : : Mindlessly voting for anyone but bush is just as ignorant as voting : midlessly for him. Yes, that's about what I was saying. Mindless voting is, in some regards, worse than not voting at all. And it appears that's what sunder has done -- not voted, instead of mindlessly voted. But when all the facts, and the necessities to check the facts, are at your fingertips, there's no reason to be doing either. - Damian
Re: Fact checking
Damian Gerow wrote: I don't give a flying fuck who you vote for, who the options are, what you think of them, or even if they're convicted drunk drivers hell-bent on converting the world to their belief system (...). You, sir, are in great need of an enema. *PLONK*
Re: Fact checking
: B*llshit. From a transcript of an interview of Al Gore by Wolf Blitzer: : http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/ : : During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in : creating the Internet. Yes, that's exactly what he said: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took initiative in creating it. Two very different things. Now take it in context. Do you really believe that he didn't want people to think he was instrumental from the beginning (since he created it) in the Internet? Or that he was simply another GC, working off an architects plans? I think people took it the right way the first time. Sure, I agree its importance is way overblown; I mean, name one politician who *hasn't* taken credit for someone else's work. But don't be an apologist. If he wants to run for president, he's got to deal with his record, just like kerry (did I or didnt I throw away those medals) or bush (i know those national guard records are here somewhere). I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too far astray. Yeah, he was in there on John Postel's CC: list for RFC evaluations.
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Pete Capelli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 16:01]: : Yes, that's exactly what he said: : : http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ : : That's not saying that he invented the internet, it's saying that he took : initiative in creating it. Two very different things. : : Now take it in context. Do you really believe that he didn't want people to : think he was instrumental from the beginning (since he created it) in the : Internet? Or that he was simply another GC, working off an architects : plans? : : I think people took it the right way the first time. Sure, I agree its : importance is way overblown; I mean, name one politician who *hasn't* taken : credit for someone else's work. But don't be an apologist. If he wants to : run for president, he's got to deal with his record, just like kerry (did I : or didnt I throw away those medals) or bush (i know those national guard : records are here somewhere). Agreed, every politician has their own problems. I /personally/ don't believe that Mr. Gore was trying to take credit for 'inventing' the Internet. His wording is incredibly vague, and I agree that it could be taken as him trying to take credit for building up the Internet to the point it is today. But he'd have to be *incredibly* stupid to actually believe that he could get away with claiming he invented something that existed (albeit in various forms) years previous. My problem lays in the fact that not one person (save Gore himself) can verifiably know what Gores intentions were with that statement. The way he phrased the statement is tricky, and leaves it pretty open to interpretation. But I hold fast that he was /not/ saying he invented the Internet. Anyhow, I wasn't trying to get into a debate over what he said, although I guess that was unavoidable. I'm not trying to apologize for what he's said, nor am I trying to make excuses. If he's going to live in the public eye, he's got to either maintain an impeccable character, or suffer its flaws. My problem was that the statement /is/ vague, and the vagueness was then translated into 'inventing the Internet'. Which, again, isn't really all that true. Had sunder said, Al 'Creating The Internet' Gore, that would have been spot on, and I'd have chuckled. But he didn't, so it wasn't, so I didn't. : I took initiative in building a house. That's not saying that I built it, : it's saying that I approved the blueprints, paid the builders, and would : check on things every once in a while, to make sure they weren't going too : far astray. : : Yeah, he was in there on John Postel's CC: list for RFC evaluations. No, nor was I there for the developing of the blueprints, nor the chopping of the trees, nor the mixing of the mortar. But I still took initiative in building the house. Just as Gore took initiative in creating -- or rather, helping to create, or helping to fund the creation of -- the Internet. At this point, I concede that there's no way to tell the truth, and that continued discussion can't really progress anywhere. Al Gore munged his words*, and paid the price. End of story, and at this point, it doesn't much matter what he really meant -- he's still not the president, nor will he ever be. - Damian * = More than this once, I might add.
Re: Fact checking
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 04:12:40PM -0400, Damian Gerow wrote: Agreed, every politician has their own problems. I /personally/ don't believe that Mr. Gore was trying to take credit for 'inventing' the Internet. His wording is incredibly vague, and I agree that it could be taken as him trying to take credit for building up the Internet to the point it is today. But he'd have to be *incredibly* stupid to actually believe that he could get away with claiming he invented something that existed (albeit in various forms) years previous. Good grief -- algore is fucking pathological liar. That was just one example among thousands. He can't even tell the truth about where and how he grew up. Gore the lessor of two evils? As much as I despise dubbya, I can't say I'd prefer gore -- but then I voted for Ralph, and will again. And voted libertarian the two elections before that. And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Fact checking
Thus spake Harmon Seaver ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [26/04/04 19:25]: :And the local elections are no prime pickings either, it's crooks to the left : of us, crooks to the right of us, ahead and behind, above and below. Extremely : few real choices. The real problem is -- most people don't vote. What needs to : be done is a real grass roots effort to educate people and get them to vote. So, how does one start a grass roots effort? I'm Canuck, and I'm not exactly impressed with this year's pickings up North. My last vote was a vote /against/ the in-office party, not for the party I'd like to see in office. How do you start motivating a lazy and apathetic public to learn about their candidates, and vote? Door-to-door campaigns? Talks at the local library? Grocery store posters?
