Previous Entry | Next Entry

a few open letters

  • Nov. 3rd, 2004 at 4:03 PM

Dear the State of Michigan,

Wow. Don't think I'm going to forgive your for the civil rights hate just because you went for Kerry. I was all excited to see that even Kalamazoo County went in Kerry's column. And you're so cool with the mitten-shaped geography that can be represented with hands as maps. Not to mention the long standing anti-death penalty stance. These always made me feel a little bit of state pride, but really what's up with the big gay hate?

I mean, I'd be all for a complete marriage ban. Why not go all the way?

Disappointed in the Republic of Cascadia,

[ j ]

---

Dear the Youth Vote,

Seriously. What the fuck was so important that nine out of ten of you couldn't stumble your way out to the polls yesterday?

Hoping you enjoy the inevitable draft,

[ j ]

---

Dear the John Kerry Sincere Thank You Letter,

Thanks for ruining my plan to use time at the office to not be sad about the election. That part where you wrote, "I wish I could just wrap you in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across the nation" is cheesy as hell, but I really think that we could all use a hug about now.

Best of luck back in the Senate. I hope you've prepared some interesting text to use for all the filibusters,

[ j ]

Comments

( 33 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]uglyvalentine wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:09 pm (UTC)
Dear the Youth Vote,

Seriously. What the fuck was so important that nine out of ten of you couldn't stumble your way out to the polls yesterday?

Hoping you enjoy the inevitable draft,

[ j ]

excuses i've heard:
- i didn't know where i was supposed to go. (are you r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d?)
- i was looking for a job. (from 8 am to 8 pm, right.)
| Reply | Thread
[info]erik wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:22 pm (UTC)
Seriously, what they need to do is just declare Voting Day a national holiday. The vast majority of excuses I hear for not voting have to do with time. Those people saying they were "looking for jobs?" Yeah, you can't be calling companies/going to interviews when they're all gone on a national holiday. People would have an entire day to figure out where to vote and get off their asses and do it. And then they'd also have the rest of the day to volunteer, or just go mess around, or attend election parties.

I really don't see why they didn't institute this a long time ago because it makes sense for so many reasons. For all of the importance we place on voting and participating in the democratic process you'd think they'd want to facilitate that participation as much as possible.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:27 pm (UTC)
I agree with turning Election Day into a national holiday and I think that several expert panels have even recommended this. I doubt that veterans would be offended if we decided to make their national holiday shared with our day for national elections. If anything, it would seem to honor their contribution by making voting more accessible to all.

I can't understand why it hasn't been changed. Maybe it helps the powerful by keeping working people away from the polls.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]erik wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:36 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that's very true. The wealthy have a lot more flexibility with their time and can afford to go vote. They own companies and call the shots. The working stiff, some of whom work a lot of overtime and literally might not be able to get there during regular voting hours, or who just doesn't have flexibility in his schedule because his boss is a dick and won't give him the time, is by his situation less likely to vote, and he's also more likely to be Democratic, though I guess you could debate the legitimacy of that claim.

In lieu of a national holiday I found the absentee ballot to be a fantastic way to analyze the candidates/initiatives in my own time and vote when I was ready, and so really there should be no excuse not to vote because people have this option open to them. Surely anyone can find an hour in the span of two weeks to sit down, look over the ballot, and fill in some bubbles.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]uglyvalentine wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:47 pm (UTC)
I just don't understand the people who don't vote because they say they don't have time. I get up at 7 am and go to school/work till 8 pm and come home on public transportationand commute daily for over an hour and still have had time to register, update my address and vote by mail. When it comes down to it, I just think people are lazy and a lot of Americans seem to be that way.

Singapore possibly might have an entire day off next year for their elections so everyone can vote - which is such a good idea. Having election day as a holiday would be so amazing, or even trying that out for one presidential election year to see how it turns out..
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:56 pm (UTC)
I think you're right about people just being lazy or they might not think that their vote matters. Still, I wish they'd be honest and just say that instead of complaining about not having enough time to vote.

I mean, it's really pathetic to think that they can't find an hour per year to participate in their government. Absentee voting (especially in WA) is really easy.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]uglyvalentine wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 05:08 pm (UTC)
It's totally pathetic that these people can't get off their ass to vote. I know people who don't even have the legal right to vote and still work 10X harder than my friends who are citizens and CAN vote.

It's just really really depressing seeing my friends who have endured leaving their own country because of communism and having had to stand in a marsh full of leeches for 2 days, stowing away in a boat and then having everything they own stolen by pirates (yeah, they do exist in southeast asia) and then floating in the ocean for days with no food until they were in Taiwanese seas that gave them political asylum... just to move to America..as compared to friends who have time to watch TV, go to bars, spend money on clothing/shoes/music and then having to listen to them complain about how our country 'sucks.' As bad as we might think we have it - republican president or not - we have it so good here and people don't seem to realize that. It's so sad.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 04:49 pm (UTC)
I'm also a huge fan of absentee ballot and not much of a fan of stupid excuses for not voting. I would have thought that a good proportion of people 18-25 are in some sort of educational setting, which has to have one of the more flexible schedules out there. The worst case scenario is a skipped class.

The income difference in party preference seemed to play out in the national exit polls [cnn]. Kerry had the majority of people earning less than $50,000 per year, and the gradient was fairly noticeable -- the more money you make the more likely you were a Bush voter. (There weren't separate brackets for billionaires, who probably broke the trend and went for Kerry.)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 07:31 pm (UTC)
While working the polls yesterday, one woman mentioned waiting in line - she said "us Democrats have to get to work - the Republicans are the ones who don't care about waiting here all day".

In Germany they vote on Sunday - makes a lot of sense.

Here in NC polls are open from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM. One must find 30 minutes in there somewhere to vote. It's incredibly insane.

I think in other countries that I can't recall at the moment - they *do* have a national holiday. It would make sense.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 12:59 pm (UTC)
In Germany they vote on Sunday - makes a lot of sense.


Obviously, this wouldn't work here. Everyone would be too busy being in church!
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 03:21 pm (UTC)
exactly
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]rhiannonwc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 05:33 pm (UTC)
Maybe that would be a good thing if they were all in church and too busy to vote...
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 7th, 2004 07:11 pm (UTC)
Hm . . . I'm liking this idea!
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 7th, 2004 07:23 pm (UTC)
This would probably backfire since church-based recruitment was a key component of Bush's victory. I imagine that these people would all bus to the polls after a rousing sermon and coffee hour.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 8th, 2004 06:05 pm (UTC)
True, good point.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]superbeth wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 05:11 pm (UTC)
I was listening to NPR on Election Day and I remember hearing an interview with someone in Australia...where apparently its against the law to not vote and you get fined.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous) wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 12:41 am (UTC)
Yup, it's right. I'm in Australia right now, and people get fined something like $50 for not voting. But, from some of the Aussies that I've talked to, a lot of people when they vote, don't even know who they are voting for. .. ennie minnie minie moe. Which I guess is why John Howard got re-elected as Prime Minister (who appears to be Australia's somewhat equivalent of Bush... at least that's what I got from all the anti-Howard flyers handed out at school). But who's to say that some Americans didn't know who they were voting for either. Maybe that's how Bush got re-elceted too.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 11:26 am (UTC)
Here's a summary of how the fines work in Australia -->
http://find.slate.com/id/2108832/
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 07:33 pm (UTC)
Oh, yeah - Michigan's Gay Marriage ban was around 60% for 40% against, which was *at least* smaller than most states 75% or more. . .

But I agree 100%. No marriage for anyone.
| Reply | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 01:06 pm (UTC)
Still, it's a sad day for the Great Lakes State when we're celebrating a 20% margin in the wrong direction. But I know what you mean. Even I, a great big liberal, find it hard to get fired up for anything to do with the whole marriage issue.

I just think it's silly that people care so much.

-

( I think that Oregon was the closest -- and theirs was an amendment to allow rather than ban)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 03:21 pm (UTC)
No, I agree. It's not good.

Oregon's was the closest, before Michigan.

I think it's silly that people want to make love illegal.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]lesliefrye wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 08:25 pm (UTC)
come on folks!
The polls are open 13 hours, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. And you can't find 1/2 an hour to vote? And you need the entire day off to vote? And if it were a national holiday, would you vote then--or go to the beach? I somehow don't that think time is the problem. Plus all the absentee and early voting options! What else might the excuse be? Because I just don't get it.


I'm with Joe and his machine. What are you going to do with it? I am saddened and sick of reading on my Governator's website each day about another 19 year old who has been killed in Iraq. Enough! Enough. Hey--Iraqi mothers and fathers, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorways, don't block up the hall. Because if you don't help, no one can help you.
| Reply | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 3rd, 2004 10:25 pm (UTC)
Re: come on folks!
I don't think that anyone needs the day off work, and think that in most states it isn't hard to get to the polls or to get an absentee ballot. But, I don't see anything wrong with making it a national holiday.

It would probably do a lot to help with getting qualified people to work the precincts and to help with get out the vote efforts.

-

Though even if it were a holiday, there would still be people in service industries who would need to work. So, it wouldn't solve all the turnout problems, but I think it would be a nice gesture toward really encouraging voting.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]edawson wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 12:21 am (UTC)
Some guy on the West Wing tonight suggested a complete marriage ban. He was like, you don't condone my lifestyle, I don't condone yours. So there you go.
| Reply | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 11:28 am (UTC)
I actually watched the West Wing last night (desperate for fake government television again) and was thrilled to see someone advocating this position. Of course, it was portrayed in the context of an obstructionist nutcase, but I'll take what I can get!

I just think that the issue would be so much easier if the religious and civil aspects of "marriage" were separated.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 03:25 pm (UTC)
Awesome!
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]mattack wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 08:32 am (UTC)
I'm a big supporter of dumping marriage from government recognition.
| Reply | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 11:57 am (UTC)
I would have a lot more respect for it if we just separated the religious ceremonial marriage from the state-sanctioned civil union aspect of it. I think that it would completely resolve the issue, but really what do I know?

I'm not at all in touch with the mainstream.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]rhiannonwc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 01:46 pm (UTC)
I never realized how completely out of touch I was with people until Tuesday night when I saw that the gay marriage ban passed here. I was so sure it wouldn't pass, it never really entered my mind that it could. Fred was trying to convince us on Friday that it definitely would, but I thought he was being crazy. How could it possibly pass? I mean, almost every person I know voted no on it, the exception being a couple of assholes at work, but even most of the people at work who were talking about it planned to vote no. And even my 85-year-old grandma is for gay marriage, so I figured a slim majority must at least not be against it. It makes me cry that I'm surrounded by way more horrible, mean, ridiculous people than I ever imagined.

I should tell Jason that we can't get married now, in protest.
| Reply | Thread
[info]jenna_marie wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 03:26 pm (UTC)
Hm . . . interesting idea. Not sure I can get behind it, but interesting. . .
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]rhiannonwc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 05:28 pm (UTC)
I have a feeling he won't be able to get behind it either. ;-)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]joshc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 04:50 pm (UTC)
I should tell Jason that we can't get married now, in protest

This is a great policy.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
[info]rhiannonwc wrote:
Nov. 4th, 2004 05:32 pm (UTC)
I think so, but I have a feeling Jason won't be as excited about this policy. It makes perfect sense to me though! Why should I be able to get married when other people who really want to can't?
| Reply | Parent | Thread
( 33 comments — Leave a comment )