Ralph Sevush, all around good guy, wrote the following short essay which he calls “The Cultural Divide.” I thought it was an interesting take on the current status of things and decided to close out political blog entries for a bit with it:
Regarding the cultural divide
This morning, I woke up thinking…
… that, as Spalding Gray observed, I live on an island off the coast
of America;
… that we should have just let the south secede when they wanted to;
… that perhaps we could consider a new form of secession, a Northern
secession;
… that if Canada could just give up a strip of land along the northern
border of North Dakota and Montana, we could build a “Freedom Trail”
with an “underground railroad” that connected the northwestern corner of
Minnesota to the northeastern corner of Washington state, thus creating
an independent, contiguous nation consisting of the Northeast, the Great
Lake region, the northern midwest, and the westcoast (plus Hawaii) with
full autonomy from the United States;
… that we could then forge a union with Canada, and become the
Federation of North American States (FONAS);
… that we would then be Fonasians, with access to Canada’s national
health care, with religious and ethnic diversity and tolerance,
relationships with the rest of the world, economic justice, individual
freedoms, and great hockey teams;
… that we would then have a nation composed of the cultural, financial
and industrial centers of the former US, and have Canada as our farmland
and ranch, and still have great vacation spots in the south pacific;
… that we could learn a lesson from Israel and build a massive wall
along our southern border that would separate us from the belligerent,
imperialistic, crypto-Fascist military theocracy that continues to grip
the US government, as it presides over a small-minded citizenry steeped
in religious zealotry who love only their god, themselves, their first
cousins and their sheep, and whose leading export to the world is death;
… that I should just roll over and go back to sleep. Perhaps I’ll
dream of Fonasia, in repose on my island off the coast of America.
But when I wake up, I’ll still be here.
Shìŧ.
Did you ever have one of those mornings?
– by Ralph Sevush, Esq.
(a card-carrying member of the ACLU and the MMMS)
• 
Wow, what did I miss with Novafan? he got shrouded? I only remember one other poster getting shrouded before.
Novafan: I say. If some person attempted to kill innocent people, I say they should have no rights whatsoever…Craig, at least if you quote me, don’t quote me out of context. I said the Geneva Convention should not apply to terrorists.
To be fair, I think what Novafan MEANT to say was that the GC should not apply to terrorists, but that’s not what he said. He said “some person” who attempts “to kill innocent people.”
Face it, terrorists are really nothing more than criminals. People who commit acts of violence with no government backing are criminals. People who commit acts of violence with a government’s sanction or support are soldiers. The GC deals with the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians during wartime.
So, in a way, Novafan is correct: the GC do not apply to terrorists. Since they usually lack a formal governmental association, they can’t be the subject of a war. They are “militans civilians,” which is a fancy way of saying “criminal.”
I’d suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework. Check out the Declaration of Independance and the Consitution of the United States of America. It’s got some basic language in there about what our founders thought were some basic truths about mankind, and what rights belonged to all people, criminal, civilian, soldier, everyone.
The divestment of those right traditionally was a very challenging thing to accomplish. Novafan wants that divestment to occur whenever someone commits a terrorist act, which by his own words is when “some person attempted to kill innocent people.”
Here’s the thing: If you condone the use of torture (which, history has proven, doesn’t usually elicit reliable information, it just gets the poor soul you’re torturing to tell you what he thinks you want to know) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason. I’ll grant you, it must take some kind of inhuman being to plan and execute an attack that kills thousands of people. However, I do not want to see our society dragged down into that same inhuman mentality that allows us to condone the use of torture, murder, and invasion clothed in the guise of protection and safety.
If you condone the use of torture (snip) for ANY reason, you open up the possibility that torture will in fact be used for ANY reason.
Yes, and Novafan completely and utterly failed to recognize that fact in the reply I post, where he just sits there and claims I’m misquoting him.
Some people just don’t get it. And they’ll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.
Why should we care about that “Geneva Convention BS?” Simply put, if we don’t adhere to the spirit of those accords, why should we expect any other nation to do the same with captured US soldiers?
I wouldn’t shed any tears for any suffering that Osama bin Laden might endure, but how can we as a country claim to uphold high ideals when we’re willing to chuck those ideals when they become inconvenient?
Not sure how many people are still reading the thread after more than 300 entries, but for whatever it
Well, I have no hopes for it, given the sentiments expressed on this very thread.
Kingbobb said I’d suggest Novafan go read some basic documents about what this country is supposed to be about, but that might be too much like assigning homework.
Been there, done that. Thanks for the advice. Because I don’t think we should turn the other cheek when it comes to dealing with the scumbags of this Earth, that means I haven’t read nor understood the founding documents of this country? I beg to differ. There has to be exceptions to every rule. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Milosevich (sp) should not even be considered human since they did and in the case of Osama, are doing so many inhumane things. How can we treat things like this as humans? They only thing they understand is force.
Craig said Some people just don’t get it. And they’ll do anything they can to try and justify senseless violence against others.
You’ve just captured Osama’s second in command. You stopped him from executing his latest scheme to murder thousands of innocents. You know they have another major plan in place that will dwarf the 9/11 attacks hundred fold but you can’t figure out when the attack will occur or where the target is. What do you do? Do you wave the human rights flag in this guys face or do you do whatever it takes to get the information out of him so that you save lives?
What do you do? Place your principles aside for the greater good or potentially sacrifice millions of lives because you’re worried about offending this scumbags rights.
Novafan wrote…
There has to be exceptions to every rule.
Um, no.
You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.
Jeff said Um, no.
Ok, so maybe not Every Rule. I was trying to make a point where we should not apply normal rules to Terrorists. Does that sound better?
Karen said You miss the point. By treating inhumane people humanely and with justice instead of revenge, it lifts us all up. Why go down to their level? The way we treat criminals says a lot about a society. I want to live in one that respects the law FOR EVERYONE, not where Abu Ghraib is allowed. To decide to treat people differently, as if they are not human, is easy. Thus it makes it easier to justify monstrous acts of our own. But this does not make it right.
No, I don’t miss the point. Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don’t meet your standards of Right. I bet there are things that you have to do or have had to do in your lifetime that you do not agree with, but it was necessary to do for whatever reason. Do you understand what I’m saying?
You are wrong. It is easy to live your life without treating others badly. It is not difficult to ask for justice, instead of revenge. This is why there was a Geneva Convention. To spell out what is right and appropriate. Most of the nations in the world agreed. It is part of what makes us civilized. The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.
Karen said The rules are for EVERYONE or they are worth nothing.
You undertand that these people want to destroy everything we believe in, including our way of life, and you still think they should be treated the same way as everyone else? If they kill you, they think they will be rewarded in the after life. You think they give a darned about our civilization’s rules?
I have a different opinion than yours, and I believe it’s a valid opinion. Would your viewpoint change if a terrorist killed someone you cared about and it was learned that he or she could have been stopped if they would have gotten the information out of someone they had captured. Think about that before you start saying that I’m wrong and you’re right. Your minds already made up, why do I even bother.
Well, Novafan, since you invoked the Biblical phrase of “turn the other cheek,” maybe you can find for me the scriptural passage that says that concept doesn’t apply to scumbags.
Look, I get what you’re saying. These folks do terrible things. They murder and terrorize their own citazens, plot or allow plots to murder and terrorize hundreds, and in some cases thousands of civlians. They’re the bad guys.
The reason why we can’t sink to the levels you’re advocating is that, once you start to go in that direction, it’s very hard to come back. And I’m not just talking about a general moral decay here. Once we start, as a society, to ignore the concepts of due process and inherant human rights, we take a few more steps toward anarchy. Handing government the ability to decide who does and does not have rights is not a good thing.
Here’s a thought: take your scenario from above. The man you’ve captured has been raised from birth to believe that you and everything you represent is evil. He also believes that to die in the struggle against you is going to send him directly to heavan. And that the more that he suffers, the greater his reward in the afterlife is going to be. What makes you think that there’s anything that you can do to him on earth that will make him divulge any useful information? Or worse, give you misinformation? So you then act, set up troops, look to defend the supposed target, and then the strike occurs somewhere else entirely? So, not only are those countless civilians now dead, but you’ve also violated your own belief in due process, the rule of law, and basic human rights. All for what? Nothing.
And even if you do manage to detect and thwart the plan, you’ve still given a whole new generation of terrorists another reason to hate us. Because for all our talk about freedom, democracy, and rights, at the end of the day, when it’s American lives at stake, we’re just as violent and selfish and immoral as the next guy.
And yes, the fact that you see nothing wrong with stripping anyone of their basic human rights without due process shows that you don’t comprehend the meaning of the documents that form the foundation of our society. Remember, our founders where in their own fashion terrorists fighting against the English monarch. Certainly not on the scale of the people we face today, and certainly not targeting civilians to the extent they are targeted today, but still, would you condone the English torture of George Washington had they captured him?
Sometimes you have to make decisions that are difficult but Necessary to make, even if they don’t meet your standards of Right.
Uh, guys, you’re trying to reason with a concrete block. Look carefully at the above quote.
He’s apparently oblivious to the fact that something that doesn’t “meet standards of Right” is, in fact, more commonly referred to as “wrong”. Given that, I don’t think you’ll have much luck getting through using mere logic, rationality and good sense.
Though no doubt we’ll soon be treated to a dizzying rationalization of how doing something wrong is right. There might even be a tedious, yet at the same time strangely unoriginal, ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure. How exciting.
Hoo Boy. This has been one heck of a thread. Some bullets
ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES
I hate them. Precisely because they are not bug proof, and therefore may give an inaccurate account even if such was not planned. Plus, I remember an article in “Insight” magazine (a very conservative publication) that stated the possibility of suchmachines being programmed to register three votes for every vote cast for one vote cast for one candidate, for example. The possibility of such a thing happening – regardless of intent – bothers me a great deal.
A paper trail should be required. Maybe we could go back to butterfly ballots, and teach the easily confused how to follow a bloody ARROW that is pointing to the hole they have to punch for their candidate.
Having been on the losing side of a couple close elections in Philadelphia, including one where basically everyone agreed the Democratic candidate for mayor got about 10,000 fraudulent votes and won by about 3,000, I am sensitive to this topic, and do not change my opinionwhen it benefits, or has the potential to benefit, those I support.
It is essential in a democracy/ democratic republic that elections are generally thought to be won fair and square and that the true ‘choice of the people” is victorious.
We lose that…
Re: TORTURE
You know, there really is a middle ground on this (despite some saying there can’t be exceptions to every rule, despite the fact that this contradicts those who are constantly chittering about “nuance” and “the world is not black and white”).
Of course we should do our best to uphold our ideals, but there are limits.
Actually, if “life” is one of the things guaranteed to us, are we not abandoning our ideals in a BIG way if we could possibly stop the deaths of millions of people by “getting our hands dirty”.
Because, frankly, Abu Ghraib was not true torture. For true torture, ask those who know of The bataan Death March, or John McCain…or those who were mutilated and saw their wives raped in front of them by Saddam Hussein.
If you would rather see millions die than point and laugh at an enemy’s pëņìš, then you really have been blinded to all sense of perspective.
An addendum to my last point:
Would you say it is chauvinistic/wrong for a man to hit a woman who is trying to kill him, or destroy a city?
Of course, a man hitting a woman is wrong 99.999 percent of the time. But there ARE exceptions to every rule
MADONNA AND CHILDREN’S BOOKS
“Writing children’s books doesn’t show anything of one’s moral character”
Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children’s authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
In a day and age when a lot of crap from both the Right and Left is justified as being “for the children”, connecting and truly caring about children is indeed, dare I say, a moral act.
Even if they are accused of being in it “for the money”, well, they could make money by selling crack in the playground, too. That doesn’t negate the education and enjoyment children’s books bring to millions of children.
And why do people still get all up in arms about Madonna’s morality, anyway?
Has she ever been threatened with having her children taken away from her?
Has she ever been “scandalized” by a drug or alcohol addiction?
Has she ever been caught being violent?
She’s a successful businesswoman, has constantly adapted to the times, has now had an enduring marriage and by most accounts is a doting mother.
But she’s comfortable with bothe her body and her sexuality, which drives prudes and alarmists and religious fundamentalists and rabid feminists crazy.
Pretty silly when you think about it.
Jerome Maida, Don’t know that your comments were directed specifically at me, but I’ll add in my $.10 (having already added about $.08)
I’d have to scroll up a ways, and that’s getting to be some work now, but I don’t think we were discussing any specific example of torture/abuse here. Novafan was speaking in generalities, and I think the responses to him have also been in generalities.
I see a difference between “getting your hands dirty” and torture. Some of the things that occurred, so far as we know, at Abu Gharib would approach, but not cross, the line. Some things go far beyond that line. They’re prisoners: If it was supposed to be a pleasant thing, Canada and Mexico would have declared war on us long ago, with a simultaneous surrender offer.
But Novafan is talking about doing ANYthing in order to extract the information you THINK the prisoner has.
Also, here’s the problem with weighing your potential losses against the torture of a few to gain information. That reasoning works, IF your prisoner actually knows something. Heck, you could even chalk it up as an even deal if your prisoner is at least guilty if something. BUt what if your guy’s innocent? What if you make a mistake? How do you measure the torture/murder of an innocent life, even whe your goal is t protect many, many more lives? Who makes that decision?
If I may borrow from Star Trek, the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one. Logic would dictate otherwise. But you tell that to the innocent guy who has his rights, freedom, and perhaps his very life sacrificed in the name of safety. If we had a foolproof way of determining who, exactly, the bad guys are, we’d not be having this discussion. But that’s exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.
Kingbobb said But that’s exactly what due process and the protection of basic human rights is all about.
Are you telling me that if you were in the same room as Osama Bin Laden that you would care about basic human rights? It would take every ounce of energy I have to prevent myself from killing him with my bare hands. I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.
What would you do if someone opens their jacket laced with dynamite and is about to light it? Would you stop and think about their basic human rights or would you act to try and stop them?
What would you do if you were a witness to a girl being kidnapped? Would you act to stop them or stand there and do nothing because you might infringe upon their rights. This happened a few days ago. A girl was kidnapped in front of other people and the bystanders did nothing to stop it. Did they do the right thing? Would they have violated his human rights if they had to hurt him to stop him?
There are 3 types of people in this world. Those that watch things happen (see above), those that make things happen, and those that wonder what the heck just happened (see above).
The only way we know what happened is it was captured on tape. I would have yelled at someone to get their license plate number, yell at another one to call the police, and then do what I could to prevent him from getting the girl in the car. Even if I had to hurt him to stop him, I would do so. As far as I’m concerned, his basic human rights stopped the minute he crossed the line and attempted to kidnap that girl. He trampled over her human rights didn’t he? Who’s the victim here, the kidnapped girl or the kidnapper?
David said Dude, we’re about to kick you out of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. You’re making us look bad.
I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn’t do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney’s nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn’t make it right.
Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)
“Writing children’s books doesn’t show anything of one’s moral character”
Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children’s authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters…. for entirely different reasons, of course.
I appoligize for my comments about Teresa. It was uncalled for since I didn’t do the research on her background. I was really upset when someone questioned Mrs. Cheney’s nobility, and I lashed out in response, which doesn’t make it right.
Novafan (man enough to admit he made a mistake)
Yeah, that is a sign of a man; heaven knows I made my share of mistakes. (And if you prefer Mrs. Cheney to Teresa Heinz as a person, that’s fine…I can admit there are grounds to do so…)(and personally, writing a racy novel in the past is a plus in my book….Heh).
I probably would cross the line if faced with that situation.
I wonder how many Iraqis would do the same thing if they were in the room with an unarmed George W Bush.
Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.
To kill Osama in the same situation? Well, I’m sure Bush would be willing to try and get you off from murder.
But then, there’s a difference between an unarmed enemy combant who has been captured or given up (like Saddam), and one who’s pointing a gun at your head.
Or do you advocate wonderful events like Tianamen Square, where the army would rather just run over the unarmed civilians in tanks? Yeah, that’s humane.
Craig said Ahh, but that would be terrorism to kill Bush.
You’ve got this fixation with Bush don’t you. Did he do something personal to you that you can’t stop bashing him or can you not stand the fact that people actually like him as Commander in Chief. Which is it?
Can you make one counter post to mine that doesn’t involve you trying to slam Bush? I ask a question about Arafat, you turn it around and ask the same question about Bush. I state something that could occur with me in the room with Osama, and you put a spin on it to include Bush. I can’t wait to hear what you’re going to come up with next.
Is there anything else you would like to say about Bush? I’m sure everyone would like to hear everything you have to say on the matter.
For this statement “Writing children’s books doesn’t show anything of one’s moral character” Sure it does. Not everything, mind you. But if you look at the majority of successful children’s authors, they have empathy for, compassion for and yes, love for children.
eclark1849 said Interestingly enough, so do most child molesters…. for entirely different reasons, of course.
Have you ever been molested before? I’m so glad to hear that the messed up individual who did that to me actually loved me. Yes, that makes me feel great for you to say that.
How can you compare the love someone feels for children that they express in children’s books to a child molester. That is a very sick thing to say indeed.
Let’s hear, “if that really did happen to you…” again, shall we. Not that I haven’t heard it before.
Got anything else snappy to say?
Novafan (disgusted)
Ok, I should know better, but I’m going to try one last time.
Novafan, you describe several situations. All in response to my statement about due process. First, you’re in a room with Bin Laden, and he’s sitting in a chair across from you, so you must resist the temptation to kill him. He’s not threatening you, he’s unarmed, and he’s pretty much not going anywhere.
Your second and third situations are a bomb-bearing guy is threatening to detonate himself, and finally, the very real and recent apparant broad daylight kidnapping of a woman by two men in a mall parking structure, which several mall shoppers witnessed, but apparantly not one got a license plate number, or a description of either the woman or the men.
There’s a significant difference in these examples. With Bin Laden, he doesn’t appear to be threatening you right that moment. Is he planning to? Has he planned something? Sure, maybe, I don’t know. What I do know is that you are in no immediate danger, that I can tell, and last I checked, private citizens aren’t given a license to kill, so if you do give in to that urge, and you do kill him, congratulations, you’ve just committed murder. Now, I don’t know what it’s like to kill another person. I pray to God I never do. Truth to tell, if Bin Laden were calmly sitting in a chair across the room from me, either he’s screwed, ’cause he’s been captured, or I’M screwed, ’cause I’VE been captured.
Your other two situations? Let me make a suggestion: Go look up under what conditions actions taken in self defense provide absolve you of any guilt under the law. You kill a suicide bomber before he can make himself go BOOM? Self defense. You act to prevent a kidnapping, and the kidnappers get hurt or killed in the process? Self defense, or defense of another. Legally accepted defenses that protect you from criminal sanction when you act in a way that otherwise would be a crime. The key factor? The threat was real, or reliably perceived as real, and it was IMMINENT.
If Bin Laden’s just sitting defenseless in a chair, there’s no imminent threat to defend against.
The scariest thing I’ve heard in recent times is Americans saying they have no problem with a pre-emptive military strike on possible future threats. It scares me because there’s nothing to stop us but ourselves. And Novafan, to be very honest, it’s people like you that scare me the most. Because you have absolutely no concept of how very much like our current enemies you are.
I can’t wait to hear what you’re going to come up with next.
Well, if you’re disgusted, then I can say “Mission Accomplished.
A) You know how I feel about Bush getting releected,
B) It’s the potshot at Bush you’re expected, and I didn’t even have to say his (sorry ášš) name.
Craig said Well, if you’re disgusted, then I can say “Mission Accomplished.
My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn’t it.
kingbobb said If Bin Laden’s just sitting defenseless in a chair, there’s no imminent threat to defend against.
You know what the problem with liberals is? Well, let me tell you what a major problem is.
You cry foul if a mass murderer such as Osama Bin Laden has his rights taken away from him, and yet you do nothing as the rights of someone who isn’t even born yet has his/her rights taken away from them.
Don’t you see a fundamental problem here? It’s OK to murder an innocent life in the womb of a mother because it’s her choice (as you say), but it’s not OK to take away the liberties of a mass murderer.
I can’t figure this one out and neither can the Democratic Party. Until they do get it figured out, I don’t think they will get someone into the Presidency again.
If a woman voluntarily has sex with a man and gets pregant, then they are committing murder when that child is aborted. How you can’t see it this way, and yet cry foul when a deviant gets his/her rights taken away is hypocritical to say the least.
The only time abortion should be legal is if the woman was raped or if there is a problem that could result in the death of the woman and/or the baby if the pregnancy continues.
How can you care about the rights of criminals when you care nothing about the rights of the unborn?
Novafan: Wah wah wah I was molested as a child!
Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.
That certainly explains why you turned to religion since you feel so powerless and useless that you need to belief in an imaginary higher power to give you worth in your own eyes…
So according to Nova-dork, an atrocity commited in repsonse is OK, but not one commited by one (or ones) who do it in the name of THEIR faith in THEIR god? Gotta love that christian ethic…
“The crusades and the inquistion and the salem witch trials were good! But any other belief system is wrong!”
I wish you idiots had a working mirror so you could see how sad and pathetic you really are…
And the unborn aren’t people, so they have NO rights…
Novafan:
I was being sardonic. I was pointing out that child molesters, and in fact a great deal of criminals, are great practitioners of pyschology. Child molesters know how to approach their victims by getting them to trust the molester. Look at a typical molester. He pretends he’s looking for a lost puppy. He asks a child to help him, and he looks so sad. The child feels great empathy for him and helps. Or he acts as an authority figure which the child is afraid to disobey for fear of being punished. (The opening scene in Mystic River is a good example). Another is “Your mom/dad sent me to come take you to them.” The child trusts them because they believe their mom/dad wouldn’t send somebody that would hurt them.
BTW, as for whether or not your particular molester “loved” you or not, my guess would be that he honestly either didn’t think or know the difference. I don’t think that most child molesters think they’re doing anything evil. Look at NAMBLA.
As for whether I was ever molested is more personal that I intend to be on these boards.
(Crap. I’m just gonna have to stop reading these boards all together to stop posting)
My disgusted comment was directed at the individual who made the uncalled for child molestation comment. Maybe if you actually read the post, you would have figured that out. That would be giving you too much credit though wouldn’t it.
You seem to be disgusted by liberals in general because some of us won’t bend over and take it up the áršë from Bush & all the other sad conservatives in this country.
Bladestar: Shut up and get over it.
I don’t remember throwing peanuts in your general direction, so what makes you think you’re comment means jack squat to me. Yes, I found religion to make up for being molested. Boy, you sure hit the nail on the head with that one.
Novafan: Throwing peanuts now.
Bladestar: Loser here who thinks the Unborn have no rights!
Novafan: ’nuff said for me on this thread
Craig,
You might want to check out this website:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The fight isn’t over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren’t the only ones. Although I’ve heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall’s Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.
Oh no, pathetic loser can alter my statements in his “Quotes” because he too sad to be a man…
Craig,
You might want to check out this website:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
The fight isn’t over yet. There are people trying to find out the truth. My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing. Looks like we aren’t the only ones. Although I’ve heard about this on Air America and several blogs, like Dailykos, and Josh Marshall’s Talking points memos, the mainstream media is treating this story as a non-story. Anyway, seeing your political leanings, I thought you might be interested.
Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn’t affect the election, I’d STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.
However, I have nothing but contempt for politicians who play partisan games with voting. The Republicans in Washington state are complaining about Democrats suing to get a look at provisional votes (so the Dems can contact the voters in question to get them to confirm that they are, indeed, legit). That’s not the problem…the problem is that the Republicans here are allowed to examine provisional votes in other counties and are taking advantage of the ability in those other counties. (And they have the nerve to say that Democrats are not playing fairly….)
Roger,
Well, if it turns out that there were irregularities, but it didn’t affect the election, I’d STILL want to get the problems fixed. There should be no toleration of fixable mistakes.
I agree. Right now (and I’m not sure of any exact figure) but there is a large percentage of people out there who don’t think this election was properly counted. There are quite a number of irregularities in many states. (Especially those with the electronic voting machines without paper back-up). This is a non-partisan issue. Both sides should want to ensure we have an election with a true accounting of each vote.
By the way, I live in WA state, and the Dems are able to have a look. They judge found no reason why they shouldn’t. Especially since many counties were already open to ispection.
inspection, not ispection
I post so many typos you all must think I am illiterate at times.
You might want to check out this website
I’ve heard of the site. I also heard that the founder of that did some interview with Dean or something and she showed how easy it was to manipulate the vote.
I think I might’ve mentioned this, but I read an article in Florida about voter registration vs voter turnout. And how the touch machines look fine, but it’s the optical read ballots that seem odd.
People want to dismiss these results as nothing more than “Southern Democrats”, but Florida isn’t the South that everybody thinks they know and love. Nor can it be so easily explained when the results are not even across the board.
My personal opinion? I think they managed to steal another election. I have a problem believing 51% of the voters actually think this administration is doing a good enough job to keep doing what their doing.
Ah, yes. Your opinion is just so right that a majority of the people in the country couldn’t possibly have done something different.
The election is over and conceded. I agree that if there are problems they should be fixed, but denial doesn’t help.
Seems Novafan has left the building, so this is probably going to be like talking to the wind. Which, come to think of it, isn’t all that different when he’s lurking around.
Anyway, Novafan brings the issue of abortion into our discussion of whether it’s ok or not to kill a known terrorist in cold blood. AKA murder. And let me start by saying that, when the person you’re discussing something with brings a totally unrelated subject into the conversation, trying to make a “how can you do THIS when you also do THAT” point, it usually means that they’re run into something that you’ve raised that they know they can’t rebut, so they try a “bait and switch” tact.
Again, anyway, Novafan starts to make my point for me. We started out talking about whether it was ok to kill Osama Bin Laden when he’s sitting calmly in a room, not threatening anyone. Now Novafan’s talking about taking away Bin Laden’s rights, and comparing that to allowing abortion.
See, he’s changing the situation. The whole point about not being able to just kill Bin Laden, or any prisoner, is that people as individuals shouldn’t have that authority. That’s why we have governments, entrusted with the authority to decide when an individual has forfeited their basic human rights, such as freedom, liberty, and life. If just anyone could make that decision, we’d be spiraling down into anarchy.
And by the way, Novafan, I’ll thank you to not make assumptions about me. I don’t think I’ve spoken to the issue of abortion on these boards before, and neither have I made a delcaration of party affiliation, so please, when you’re ressponding to something I’ve said, don’t make those assumptions. I hope it comes as a surprise to you that my feelings about abortion mirror yours in many ways.
“The overwhelming majority of Bush supporters did not list “moral values” as the biggest factor in their vote. In one exit poll of about 13,000 voters from both parties, 22% listed “moral values” as the number one factor. Of that 22%, 80% voted for Bush. (Source: NY Times, 11/3/04) A fraction of 22% (even a large fraction) is still less than 22%. (We can also factor in a rather wide margin of error, since we know how “accurate” this exit poll was — but let’s take it at face value for a moment.) Even if every single one of that 22% voted for Bush, that leaves at least 78% — which is in fact an overwhelming majority — of Bush voters naming some other issue as the most important to them in the election. (Source: New York Times, 11/3/04)”
Captain Math asks me to point out that there is severe math abuse going on here.
If 22% of all voters (based on the sample) voted based on “moral values”, and 80% of those moral voter values went for Bush, then 17.6% of all voters voted for Bush based on moral values. Does that mean that 82.4% of folks voted for Bush on reasons besides moral values? Nope, because about 49% of voters didn’t vote for Bush at all. About 51% voted for him… which means that more than a third of the folks who voted for Bush (again, assuming the sample is an accurate one) did so based on “moral values”. It also means that if you take out the “moral value” votes for both sides, Kerry beats Bush handily in the popular vote, making this arguably a “swing” issue.
Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.
Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.
Screwing with the polls (on principle)?
Mark,
I stated MY opinion. I did not try and say it was fact. I find it hard to believe. I’m still allowed my opinion, aren’t I? Or in this new America do I have to think the way the “majority” does to be allowed to speak. I don’t think anything will come of it for this election. Bush will be inaugurated in January. Yay for your side. But, I’d like to make dámņ sure that the next election is truly the will of the people instead of the voting machines.
Posted by Glenn Hauman:
“Captain Sociologist also idly wonders why some many folks are taking the exit poll info as accurate as to demographics and as inaccurate when it comes to representing how people actually voted.”
This is an example of the lazy media (hey, I’m counting myself in that group). You have to look at where the exit polls are taking place, mostly in urban (city) centers. Reporters and the like don’t really want to stray far from the comforts of home, and home is the cities.
It reminds me of what happened here in NC several years ago. Jesse Helms was running for reelection against Charlotte businessman Harvey Gant. It was a horribly nasty campaign from both candidates, and ALL of the polls (both pre and exit polling) showed Gant with quite a large lead. But, in actual votes, Helms won easily. This is because the pollsters didn’t go out from the urban centers to the small towns and rural areas where Helms was very popular (because he actually worked for these people, unlike a soon-to-be former senator from NC).