ENOUGH!!!

[mrsl]

So, there I was last night, sitting all alone on my couch in my living room, laughing like a loon at Jon Stewart making jokes about Congress going for a short recess due to the Jewish holiday, as if anyone would care. As he said, there are probably more Jews working on his show than there are in the whole of Congress who would want the time off in this time of crisis. Then today, along comes this refreshing post from an American citizen, Welcome Marta, living abroad, giving her impression of both McCain and Palin. Another opportunity for mirth.

Several years ago, a movie was made with Kevin Kline, pretending to be the President while the real President lay dying during a huge coverup. I liked the movie immensely but at one time, Kevin (as President), had to come up with a certain amount of money to finance a childrens charitable organization or some such thing. Dave (the name of the movie), sat down with all his advisers and shamed them into giving up their personal perks, business perks, and various other items not necessary to the economic needs of the U.S. In any case he went thru the monthly finances and found ways and means to get the money he needed, line by line. This is exactly what Obama said has to be done in order to find a solution to our economic problem . . . it cannot be solved in a day. McCain found this laughable and basically called Obama a dummy who couldn't understand basic tenets. Thankfully Marta said just what I wanted to say. McCain is a spoiled brat who only wants attention, but doesn't know what to do with it when he gets it, and his running mate is up to her pretty ears in a mess that many highly educated people would not want to be anywhere near. She has to go forward, but I'm quite sure in her own quiet hours she would like nothing better than to run home and cover her head with a bearskin rug.

That was my take on the debate. I wanted to get it out before the next one, in which I hope Obama will exert a little less diplomacy, and give the old man a kick where the sun don't shine.

Anne

[jdb1]

I really couldn't believe my ears when I heard Bill O'Reilly dissing Sarah last night. Has this been going on for long? I generally don't pay much attention to O'Reilly. He was pretty funny -- he showed that video that's been circulating of her playing the flute at the Miss Alaska competition, and made some of his usual scathing remarks.

This is very bad for the GOP, when even the voices of conservatism (I've seen on TV and read that there are others giving Sarah the raspberries as well) begin to turn on their own ticket. As much as I dislike this arrogant, limited and small-minded-seeming woman, I can't help feeling sympathy for her. It can't be easy being the object of ridicule on such a large scale. I wonder if she could evince any degree of sympathy for me, who has very little, materially, of what she has.

Now, Anne, I have to comment on something you said yesterday about going out to vote. You mentioned us sitting in offices with all our breaks and lunch hours and such. Not so, at least not in NYC. We don't get breaks -- that's something we here associate with factory work. The coffee break went away about 30 years ago or more. In addition, there really isn't any such thing as a lunch break, certainly not in law offices. If there is work to be done, you do it, and it doesn't matter what time of the day it is. Maybe you heard about breaks and lunches from someone who works in Civil Service. In the private sector -- forget it. More often than not, I work through the lunch hour, and if I'm lucky, I get a few minutes to run out to get something to eat. It's the same for most others here in NYC, and that's one of the reasons we feel we don't have enough time to vote on Election Day.

Someone else mentioned that it's the law that employers must give employees time off to vote. Is that a federal law, or a state law where you are? If it's a law here in New York, no employers are aware of it, because they don't give us time off. It is the law that employers can't penalize employees for taking time off for jury service, but no one has ever told us that we are legally entitled to time off to vote. If this is a federal law, please let me know and I'll take it up with my management.

[movieman1957]

Judith:

It's a law here in MD as well so I wonder too if it is a federal law. It would make sense.

I still claim it is a matter of indifference by the electorate. It seems as though the country has made it as easy as it can (barring changing the date) for folks to vote. I think people think that their vote won't matter. Mine won't in MD as Obama will wind easily but we have a vote on slots and there are the always entertaining Congressional races. I'll be there.

My daughter won't be 18 until about two weeks after the election. She is not happy. I wish everyone was excited about voting.

[Lzcutter]

Does anyone know how many states have early voting? I believe Ohio has already started voting. Are the early voting polling places open on weekends?

Even if not, it is likely easier to get through the line during early voting than on Nov. 4th.

Are there any states that have vote by mail (similar to absentee ballots)? I've never understood why, if people have trouble getting to their polling place, they don't just request an absentee ballot and do it that way.

I suspect polling places will see lots of people this Nov. 4th.

[moira finnie]

Lynn,
I think you're right about this particular November 4th at the polls being particularly crowded. Given all the issues facing us, I am always shocked when people don't bother to vote or even register, but then, cynicism and apathy have made the world a far better place over time, right?

I believe that I read during the 2000 election debacle that the largest number of absentee ballots may come from the military, snowbirds who live up North but spend much of the winter in the south, and Americans who reside abroad.

Having had to ask for absentee ballots repeatedly over the years due to medical issues, I have seen (in a couple of states at least), how reluctant the Board of Elections in certain counties are to allow it. One time I had to provide a doctor's note relaying why it was difficult for me to get to the polls, which struck me as distrustful and a bit of an invasion of privacy. I've also been asked to prove my country of origin twice when voting in Boston, where many illegal Irish immigrants live. This "Made in America" gal got in the habit of carrying my license, birth certificate, passport, utility bill and a "don't tread on me" attitude with me to the polls. OOooh, boy, were those poll watchers scared of all 5'3" of me!

Does online or any other simplified form of registering to vote seem like a way to invite voter fraud to you? Just curious.

[Lzcutter]

Moira,

I had no idea that getting an absentee ballot could be that difficult. I applied for an absentee ballot during the 2004 election because I wasn't sure I would be home to vote.

I requested an absentee ballot.

I received the ballot with no problem, turned it in with no problem.

I was actually home when it came time to vote so I saved myself a trip to the polls.

I wish they wouldn't make it so hard for some folks to vote.

[movieman1957]

MD has a plan that getting a driver's license can also register you to vote. The problem is illegal aliens can get a driver's license. Show that you live in MD you can reigster to vote. Never mind whether you are eligible. Indiana's law (or was it Georgia's) was recently upheld that showing an ID when you vote to prove who you are is legal. There may be more of that coming.

Every time I have gone to vote I have always been ready to show my voting card and my driver's license. They never check. It shouldn't be that big a deal to show that you are you.

Lynn, I'm not sure how voting by mail works here, if at all, unless you are incapacitated. I have read we have a very high percentage of absentee ballots requested this year.

[Synnove]

If it were made a bit simpler, it might change at least some people's attitudes from "why vote?" to "why not vote?" at least, even if there are other underlying causes for people to not vote than how complicated it is.

I don't agree with Bryce that the low number of votes is due to just how people are. Why are should the people be more "like that" in the US than in some other democracies? The voter turnout is surprisingly low in the US, and I think that means people have got concrete reasons for why they don't do it, whether it's because of cynicism or the complicated process or whatever. America isn't just any democracy, it's one of the world's biggest and most powerful, and low voter turnout there isn't very inspiring.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a lot to admire about the democracy there otherwise. The system of checks and balances seems sound to me.

[movieman1957]

I think the attitude of indifference is bcause we have had this process in place for 240 years and are under no threat for it to be changed. Maybe that hasn't always been the case elsewhere.

In addition we have elections all the time. We have them at least every two years on a national level. Some states stagger their elections for governor in the two years the president is not up for election. We are inundated with perpetual campaigning. It is real easy to get bored. Part of the problem is that nothing really changes. Whoever is in won't be able to change a lot. That is whyyou can make a bigger difference in the congressional races.

[Synnove]

You are probably right about the reasons. How high is the turnout for the congressional races?

[bryce]

Regarding voting: Really, are we going to pretend that low voter turnout is the cause of the problem, instead of a symptom of failure? Who cares why there is low voter turnout. Australia requires you to, by law, at least be present at the polls, even though you aren't required to "vote," and they still elected John Howard.

Your own Swedish government recently enacted the most invasive monitoring system ever. Everything you say on the phone or write on the internet is monitored, warrantlessly, and passed on to any interested parties, governmental or not. How is that the will of the people? How is it that in such a "concerned" country such a law was passed?

Governments are what they are. Voting is appeasement, nothing more.

cynicism and apathy have made the world a far better place over time, right?

The only difference is that the cynical and apathetic sit idly by and are either skeptical of supposed "progress" and choose not to involve themselves or are oblivious to the damning nature of politics, whereas the trusting and compassionate willfully engage themselves in a disgusting act called government which has never once proven itself to work in the entire history of mankind.

To wit: O!, my friend, they've done just as much damage as trust and compassion! To pretend otherwise, as the sarcastic edge to an otherwise valid statement implies, is frankly dangerous.

[movieman1957]

You are probably right about the reasons. How high is the turnout for the congressional races?

Not often as high as the presidential race as people see that as the bigger deal.

[Synnove]

Your own Swedish government recently enacted the most invasive monitoring system ever. Everything you say on the phone or write on the internet is monitored, warrantlessly, and passed on to any interested parties, governmental or not. How is that the will of the people? How is it that in such a "concerned" country such a law was passed?

Yes, I know.

Everyone knows we also have the highest suicide rate in the world ever, and apparently there's a civil war going on in the city of Malmö between immigrants and the police. And apparently, a little boy couldn't hand out birthday invitations in school. That sort of thing happens here every day! Either that, or your news gives a pretty one-sided picture of what goes on here.

I'm sorry. This doesn't really have anything to do with what you just said, but it's a bit frustrating to me that these are the only kind of things you tend to know about Sweden, and other European countries - even bigger ones like Britain and France. It's so typical of the news. Generally, there's more to life in these countries, than the latest political scandal. Yet that's the only thing your news shows seem to report.

To go back on topic, the law you mentioned was something which sparked huge public outcry, and a long drawn-out debate. I don't know if they are going to make changes to it or not. That is something that is being discussed. I won't deny that it is a sickening law, that it makes me feel ashamed of my country and our government, and that it's undemocratic.

However, I don't see what it has to do with the US's low voter turnout? How does the fact that we have problems change the fact that you have problems? It just shows that our very different political processes can go wrong in different ways. Did you think I meant to say that my country was more democratic than yours? If so, then I apologize, because it certainly wasn't my intention to be a condescending European, though I realize that it might have sounded that way. We have all sorts of problems. I didn't mean to imply that we didn't.

How could such a law come to pass in a country with a high voter turnout? Because there wasn't a national vote. If there had been, would this law have been passed? Who knows? It doesn't have much public favour right now, so if we were as democratic as we like to pretend to be, we'd undoubtedly stop it. It's because of the lack of national votes that the law still survives. If we could only have some more of that "appeasement" things might look pretty different.

You sound disillusioned with democracy as it is today, but I'm not sure how you think it should be changed? As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." In spite of the FRA-law, in spite of the Patriot Act, in spite of the EU's surveillance of European countries, we still have a long way to go before we are under a dictatorship. What other alternatives are there?

[mrsl]

Synnove, we've all let it out on this site somewhere, so why shouldn't you feel free to? Be our guest.

That is such a problem with the news media now. Only the bad things are reported. When Paul Newman died, people learned for the first time what a philanthropist he was, why wasn't that new out when he started doing it? instead of waiting until he died? We hear and read about entertainment people going into re-hab, but how many were in Louisiana immediately after Katrina hit? Quite a few were, but it was just a blip in the news, more important they showed those poor people begging for help from the roof of their damaged homes. If Jay Leno, and Harry Connick, Jr. and many others got there within 1 or 2 days, why couldn't the President, or the military? See what I mean? only the bad stuff gets coverage. If Newman hadn't died, but filed for divorce instead, you can bet we'd still be hearing about it. Tonights the Palin/Biden debate, let's see how many dumb things they say are quoted, but how little the good things are!

Anne

[jdb1]

Bryce, what can we say to the above? Can't you see the fallacy inherent in your statement? If you sit idly by (and I can't help but lump you in with the cynical and apathetic based on your previous statements), why would you think that anything will ever turn out the way you want it to be? Sorry, pal, but your vision of this "disgusting" government is exactly what you deserve, if you're not going to do anything to change it. I'm rarely happy with any government as a whole, but I have to say I find it naive to expect that anything, government included, is going to fit 100% into my idea of what it should be. As long as there is more than one person in the world, there's a need for law and order (Rousseau said that), and that concept has inevitably evolved into government.

Sounding off to us isn't going to make Big Bad Government do anything other than what it's doing. Do you ever take your concerns to anyone who is in a position to do anything about it? And if you did, were you rebuffed the first time, so you never tried again? That may not be the most efficacious way to approach life in general.

So-- if government has never worked, as you say, what do you propose as an alternative? A lawless, self-absorbed, minimally regulated, and greedy society? We've been having something like that lately, and look how that's worked out for us. Do we really need more of this "It's all hopless, every man for himself" mentality?