Woot! The big day is almost upon us, and the Pic Pub seems to be the place to congregate and witness either the disintegration of American democracy, or its wheezing, half-assed clinging to life.
If I may make a proclamation beyond any power I actually hold, NO ONE is permitted to stay home, or even at work, and fail to give the incoming results their full and undivided attention. Everyone is expected to be at the Pic slavishly following the returns from Ohio and Florida, and hopefully Jon Stewart will oblige us with much ongoing commentary, not just the one puny hour I've heard of so far.
For my part, I've managed to weasel my way into the US Consul-General's election night shindiggy at the Westin Bayshore, and I sure hope he's a Kerry supporter, 'cuz it'll be hard to feign disappointment when Kerry takes Ohio. That whole thing will wrap up by 9, or I may leave earlier if I can't get Comedy Central, so I'll head over to the Pic asap following my free dinner. Let's see a record turnout, people. Anytime after 6 PM or so is probably a good time to show up.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Monday, September 27, 2004
Invitation...
The first of four debates in the unholy battle of pure evil vs. (probably) less evil that we call the US election will be upon us this Thursday at 6PM (I think I'm right on the time). Since to me this whole election is pretty much like the Super Bowl, Olympics and World Series rolled into one, with the added incentive that the fate of the remnants of American democracy hangs in the balance, I'll be watching eagerly, with popcorn and playbook in hand. Anyone who wants to join me in flinging stuff at my TV every time Dubya scores a point, come on over. Email me for directions if you want 'em.
And yes, Christian, I'm a dork. We've established this already, so there's little need to point it out again (or any other euphemisms for my nerdiness). But I hope you'll find some really geeky bar somewhere and watch the damn thing too.
And yes, Christian, I'm a dork. We've established this already, so there's little need to point it out again (or any other euphemisms for my nerdiness). But I hope you'll find some really geeky bar somewhere and watch the damn thing too.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
The obsession continues...
Neither Grae nor I have drenched this site in politics nearly as much as we pledged to, but I've found this site to be indispensable to my fever-dream fantasies of sanity in American politics. It tracks the poll numbers in all the states, especially the battlegrounds, and keeps a daily-updated tally of how the electoral vote should shake out.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
This one I definitely can't put on my web site...
Got an email today that left me with a choice to make...
A group called Human Rights Internet got a resume from me some months back, and have pegged me (as one of four) for three positions doing IT and communications work for human rights groups in developing countries, for four to six months starting from late September to late October. So here's my choice:
A) Have a 75% chance (three jobs for four people) at spending half a year in a yet-unnamed Third World hellhole, dripping through the rainy season and probably catching malaria, for a pitiful monthly stipend. Return home with no money and no job, and possibly on the shit list of the folks (the BC Liberals) I'd be breaking a contract with.
B) Stay here in my comfortable headspace with a job that pays well and an apartment full of stuff I haven't finished paying for. (Sorry, Corinne, the TV would have to go back to Future Shop.) Possibly accumulate enough money to pay for school next year, and not infuriate any of the people currently running the province. Have a guaranteed job offer overseeing public consultation on the RAV line after the election, if I can hack it.
On second thought, doesn't sound like much of a choice at all, does it?
Damn, I'm gonna miss the Clubhouse Hallowe'en party.
A group called Human Rights Internet got a resume from me some months back, and have pegged me (as one of four) for three positions doing IT and communications work for human rights groups in developing countries, for four to six months starting from late September to late October. So here's my choice:
A) Have a 75% chance (three jobs for four people) at spending half a year in a yet-unnamed Third World hellhole, dripping through the rainy season and probably catching malaria, for a pitiful monthly stipend. Return home with no money and no job, and possibly on the shit list of the folks (the BC Liberals) I'd be breaking a contract with.
B) Stay here in my comfortable headspace with a job that pays well and an apartment full of stuff I haven't finished paying for. (Sorry, Corinne, the TV would have to go back to Future Shop.) Possibly accumulate enough money to pay for school next year, and not infuriate any of the people currently running the province. Have a guaranteed job offer overseeing public consultation on the RAV line after the election, if I can hack it.
On second thought, doesn't sound like much of a choice at all, does it?
Damn, I'm gonna miss the Clubhouse Hallowe'en party.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
Monday, January 12, 2004
Since I don’t want to just be MrEff’s yes-man:
Dear Puke,
The anti-war movement is not a collective. Honest to god, it’s not. They do not choose to participate under a collective banner. A poltical group posts up flyers, web pages, hand outs to get the masses (anyone) to attend a rally based on the issue that they are concerned with (be it anti-war sentiments or Free Peltier). No one claims a right to this group that collects en masse at a rally. These political organizers don’t distance themselves from the wackies because they are open to others ideas, thoughts and opinions. When you create an open rally, you invite anyone with like or opposing interests. Why should an organizer take any credit or blame for the action of anyone in attendance?
Protests, rallies, whatever you want to call them are not “working” as you feel they should in that they don’t stop the war. I think that these protests, rallies, etc. have more than one purpose. Sure, if a whole bunch of people physically say somewhere and it stopped war all over the world that would be swell, but that doesn’t happen. What does happen is that 100 people find a place to stand and voice their opinion. They invite everyone. People listen, people learn. The audience and support for an idea expands over time. Look at the WTO. Do you believe that most people would even care if it weren’t for protesters? Now you have Jane Smith, anchorwoman, running a story about why people destroyed Seattle’s downtown. When there is dissent and upheaval it makes for good 6:05 news.
The grassroots political groups need to pick their battles, and they do. I’m sure they are very sorry about not being able to hold a rally every hour of every day for every human-suffering world event that is horrible and caused by wealthy bastards. If they don’t fight all of them it does not mean that the causes they do choose are somehow less worthy of our attention.
As far as the removal of Saddam, there are other options. Ideally, yes, you create a huge domestic opposition. Realistically, you hire a sharp shooter or four, pin the blame on the guy in the warehouse who ran into a movie theatre and there never was a grassy knoll. Honestly. You don’t send off all the physically able citizens aged 18 to 34 into a pit of death to kill anyone aged 0-125 over there. Innocent people get killed in wars. Innocent children get raised in wars. Innocent children growing up in violence become violent adults. You’re setting up for future wars when you teach societies that this is the only way to solve conflicts.
Just because someone opposes Saddam and opposes war but does not have a brilliant underplayed solution doesn’t mean that they are somehow wrong. I just came up with one very sketchy alternative to the removal of Saddam without war (the whole grassy knoll). Am I all of a sudden right about opposing both war and Saddam?
The status quo on Iraq a year ago = not good. The status quo 5 years ago = not good. The status quo now = not good. What’s different is that with the removal of Saddam there are prospects for the future. People are still dying on a regular basis of unnatural causes, just now there are Americans in the mix and the numbers per day are probably up.
“Most members of the movement argue that they take to the streets in favor of the voiceless people of the countries involved; they seem instead to be arguing against any American military action.”
I don’t think those two are separate issues entirely. If American military action is taken what effect does that have on the voiceless population?
I think there is a difference between violent interventions such as war (that an anti-war movement is likely to dislike) and political interventions. Some interventions are worse than other. Going down the line we have War being the worst for all parties, All Sanctions being horrible for the citizens of the punished country, Trade Sanctions will hurt the businesses (in turn the citizens, in turn the economy, in turn the state) but at a high cost for all parties if the export is important, Opposition Campaigns (in this case unhappening—in many cases where regimes need to be removed), Political intervention with Human Rights trials from the UN and so on and so forth (but we know the limitations of the UN) and finally Humanitarian aid such as citizen empowerment programs. It’s like giving an 11 year old the talk about the birds and the bees. Sure it’s intervention, but it’s good intervention.
There is nothing moral about a country getting violent when other options can be made available for a lot less of the costs of both finances and lives. You rape comparison is false as we can call an authority to prevent it. The world stage has no one at this time (and if we did it would be Revelations, baby).
If you get to the UN make the tools of political upheaval an army of sharp shooters.
Just because some one doesn’t believe war to be the answer and does not have an answer of their own does not mean that they are doing a disservice or are magically wrong. It’s not unlike telling an anti-abortionist that protesting doesn’t work and that they should somehow rise to government with that platform to change that law. Not everyone has the desire to enter politics in a very real way.
The anti-war movement is not a collective. Honest to god, it’s not. They do not choose to participate under a collective banner. A poltical group posts up flyers, web pages, hand outs to get the masses (anyone) to attend a rally based on the issue that they are concerned with (be it anti-war sentiments or Free Peltier). No one claims a right to this group that collects en masse at a rally. These political organizers don’t distance themselves from the wackies because they are open to others ideas, thoughts and opinions. When you create an open rally, you invite anyone with like or opposing interests. Why should an organizer take any credit or blame for the action of anyone in attendance?
Protests, rallies, whatever you want to call them are not “working” as you feel they should in that they don’t stop the war. I think that these protests, rallies, etc. have more than one purpose. Sure, if a whole bunch of people physically say somewhere and it stopped war all over the world that would be swell, but that doesn’t happen. What does happen is that 100 people find a place to stand and voice their opinion. They invite everyone. People listen, people learn. The audience and support for an idea expands over time. Look at the WTO. Do you believe that most people would even care if it weren’t for protesters? Now you have Jane Smith, anchorwoman, running a story about why people destroyed Seattle’s downtown. When there is dissent and upheaval it makes for good 6:05 news.
The grassroots political groups need to pick their battles, and they do. I’m sure they are very sorry about not being able to hold a rally every hour of every day for every human-suffering world event that is horrible and caused by wealthy bastards. If they don’t fight all of them it does not mean that the causes they do choose are somehow less worthy of our attention.
As far as the removal of Saddam, there are other options. Ideally, yes, you create a huge domestic opposition. Realistically, you hire a sharp shooter or four, pin the blame on the guy in the warehouse who ran into a movie theatre and there never was a grassy knoll. Honestly. You don’t send off all the physically able citizens aged 18 to 34 into a pit of death to kill anyone aged 0-125 over there. Innocent people get killed in wars. Innocent children get raised in wars. Innocent children growing up in violence become violent adults. You’re setting up for future wars when you teach societies that this is the only way to solve conflicts.
Just because someone opposes Saddam and opposes war but does not have a brilliant underplayed solution doesn’t mean that they are somehow wrong. I just came up with one very sketchy alternative to the removal of Saddam without war (the whole grassy knoll). Am I all of a sudden right about opposing both war and Saddam?
The status quo on Iraq a year ago = not good. The status quo 5 years ago = not good. The status quo now = not good. What’s different is that with the removal of Saddam there are prospects for the future. People are still dying on a regular basis of unnatural causes, just now there are Americans in the mix and the numbers per day are probably up.
“Most members of the movement argue that they take to the streets in favor of the voiceless people of the countries involved; they seem instead to be arguing against any American military action.”
I don’t think those two are separate issues entirely. If American military action is taken what effect does that have on the voiceless population?
I think there is a difference between violent interventions such as war (that an anti-war movement is likely to dislike) and political interventions. Some interventions are worse than other. Going down the line we have War being the worst for all parties, All Sanctions being horrible for the citizens of the punished country, Trade Sanctions will hurt the businesses (in turn the citizens, in turn the economy, in turn the state) but at a high cost for all parties if the export is important, Opposition Campaigns (in this case unhappening—in many cases where regimes need to be removed), Political intervention with Human Rights trials from the UN and so on and so forth (but we know the limitations of the UN) and finally Humanitarian aid such as citizen empowerment programs. It’s like giving an 11 year old the talk about the birds and the bees. Sure it’s intervention, but it’s good intervention.
There is nothing moral about a country getting violent when other options can be made available for a lot less of the costs of both finances and lives. You rape comparison is false as we can call an authority to prevent it. The world stage has no one at this time (and if we did it would be Revelations, baby).
If you get to the UN make the tools of political upheaval an army of sharp shooters.
Just because some one doesn’t believe war to be the answer and does not have an answer of their own does not mean that they are doing a disservice or are magically wrong. It’s not unlike telling an anti-abortionist that protesting doesn’t work and that they should somehow rise to government with that platform to change that law. Not everyone has the desire to enter politics in a very real way.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Quite Possibly the Scariest thing You'll See this Halloween
I could not make this up if I tried. This is absolutely 100% real, not a spoof site. And why is Denis Miller the representative for the left? Couldn't they do any better. Well, I guess it is American politics...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)