ybnormal

Galiel-

I knew I didn't have time to get into this tonight and knew I should have waited until you said it again, but I fight going to bed like a 5 year old, but I must go to bed.

I'll try to explain more in another day or so, but I know I'll not have a decent explanation even then. It kinda just happened over the years. I moved often from state to state and never cared about local races. Don't have kids, so that gave no incentive. Living, unfortunately, in Mississippi never gave reason to vote. And then there was always jury duty tied to the voting rolls and with my broken back, I can't sit still for hours anyway.

There's lots of practicle reasons, but you aren't after those... you want me to be a part of the team... and I understand that... well, that's part of the problem... and that's the part that I can't answer tonight... I'll have some time to remember and think about it tomorrow... I'll try again this weekend. Peace!

Feather

That's not true, necessarily. Consider this: I have voted in only one of the three elections since I became eligible to vote 6 years ago. I abstained from the other two because no candidate I could vote for was satisfactory. Not a single one. The various public initiatives and the like I couldn't care any less about, because my individual vote doesn't matter.

My influence on politics via my vote power is about the same as my influence on "the market" with my consumer choices.

What matters regarding the Vote is not individuals, but groups of individuals. This is why lobby groups and PACs and the like have so much more power than each of us.

I exercise more influence by ranting and bitching at people, and by writing letters to representatives I never voted for (and never would have) than by voting.

The usual "if everybody thought as I did" argument applies of course. But that's not how it is. A significant number of people vote that, except in extremely rare circumstances, one individual vote either way won't make a difference in the outcome of an election.

So I can fulfill my responsibility to society equally at least--better in my view--by complaining than by skipping class to vote.

That "right to complain" was determined by the Founding Fathers and, thank the Gods, hasn't been eroded yet by King Cheney-Ashcroft.

Plus, see above.

Oh, I understand how the system works. I understand that the Electoral College system has been worked around to our detriment. I understand that people who are wealthy or representative of minority special interests have more access to politicians than I do, and nothing short of armed force is likely to change that. I understand that one vote in 50,000,000 is meaningless. I understand that the vast majority of human beings are filthy, stupid, ignorant slobs that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag. I understand that these people make the decisions, and I would have to hold guns to their heads to change it, because they are too goddamn stupid to understand a simple rational argument.

Sometimes I wonder why I even bother writing a letter here and there.

Apathy and cynicism are the order of the day. Call me in 1,000,000 years when humans have evolved so that their collective intelligence compares favorably to a retarded chimp and I might be willing to show more interest in their activities.



[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

fando

I think the real problem is people not feeling like they matter. Apathy is not always due to ignorance.

trientalis

What I find amusing is that money is fungible when it comes to overseas family planning agencies (can't free up funds for abortion dontcha know) but not fungible when it comes to your local faith-based charity (we trust you not to spend government funds to proselytize).

Hypocrites.

Viking

First, "faith-based" is a euphamism for "religious-based." While Lutheran Social Services has a long history of providing social service programs, they require neither their employees nor their clients to be Lutheran or xian or anything else. This initiative is specifically aimed at agencies that are overtly religious in nature.

I run a secular non-profit corporation that has provided substance abuse services for almost 50 years. My faith is the belief that human beings have the capacity to change. Although clients are familiarized with Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous, which are quasi-religious, it is offered as a tool for support following treatment. I am trying to start an SOS group (Save Our Selves - Secular Organization for Sobriety) to provide a truly non-religious alternative.

In any case, this "initiative" of King George II is just a disguise for promoting religion. I am hopeful that it will not survive the inevitable court challenges.

P.S. I would be interested in someone's perspective on Catholic Charities. I belive they function much like LSS in terms of non-discrimination. I know both have received Federal Funding for years.

tdekeyser

Here is the speech on this topic. I watched it again...HE SOUNDS LIKE A PREACHER!

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.v.smil" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-3.v.smil</a>

You will need Real Player...

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: tdekeyser ]</p>

ashibaka

Why? Do the Democratic Congressmen oppose the initiative? Do the Democratic Congressmen oppose the "Under God" bill? Do the Democratic Congressmen oppose the war in Iraq?

It's good to know the Bush administration has such potent opposition!

galiel

Anyone who seriously argues that this country and the world would be the same if Gore had been elected in 2000, and if the Democrats had retained their majority in the Senate and gained a majority in the House in 2002, is just playing partisan rhetorical games. I'm not going to waste my time refuting such an empirically fallacious implication.

ashibaka

So if they aren't in the majority, there's no need for them to voice their opinion? Gee, I ought to run for Democratic representative. I could just sit there in Congress and snooze.

Toto

It's called the judiciary. The Supreme Court.

If I have to say "under God" in the pledge (or mumble the words or sit it out) in exchange for keeping the Federalist Society from taking over the courts, that's a compromise I can live with. The Federalist judges are in the process of tearing down not only the wall of separation between church and state, but the ability of the federal government to legislate on a number of environmental and social issues.

However lame, spineless, and inept the Democrats are, they're not nominating people like Bork to the courts.