Last night we had dinner with another family who has made the move from the US to Canada. Amazingly, they don't blog! And they wish to remain anonymous in the blogosphere. These folks - a mom, a dad, and a daughter - moved from North Carolina and, like us, have settled in suburban GTA.
Dad asked how we were voting - logistically - in the New York State primaries, and seemed a bit shocked that we aren't. Aren't voting in the US. At all.
I took a lot of shit for not voting in 2006. You know, the election where the Democrats were given a mandate to get out of Iraq? The midterm elections that were supposed to turn the country around? How's that working out for ya?
I won't write yet another diatribe about why I don't want anything to do with US elections. But looking through some aging emails, I found an item James sent me from "Dykes To Watch Out For". I'm not a big comics reader, but I remember Alison Bechdel from her earliest print days, and I've been meaning to read her book Fun Home, a memoir in graphic form.
So: Dykes To Watch Out For Episode 521, or, a few reasons why I won't vote in the US anymore.
13 comments:
Runs on Windows!!!
As I said at dinner and have most likely posted here a few times, I would not be voting even if we were still in New York.
There is no way anyone who examines at the US voting system can trust the results. The evidence of voter fraud, suppression and manipulation is beyond doubt. Anyone who says otherwise has not yet looked at the evidence or has chosen to ignore it.
Casting a vote would be a statement that I believe the system is above board. It's not.
I love that one! I saw it last week and totally connected with it.
I can't vote in the Colorado caucuses because I'm in Canada and they have to meet, but I did register with Democrats Abroad in order to vote in the Overseas Ex-Pat Primary.
I'll still vote, even though Kucinich is out :-)
"I took a lot of shit for not voting in 2006. You know, the election where the Democrats were given a mandate to get out of Iraq? The midterm elections that were supposed to turn the country around? How's that working out for ya?"
I took a lot of shit, too. I'm still taking it. Tonight a group of my NDP colleagues is having a Super Tuesday Party. I'm catching a lot of grief because I'm not attending. I don't want to be too much of a drag on the evening.
When people ask me why I'm not voting, I tell them it's because it's a lot of trouble to go to just to write someone's name in.
Tonight, I think I'm just going to have a glass of wine and read.
I highly recommend "Fun Home", it's an excellent graphic biography.
About a week ago, I listened to a Point of Inquiry interview with Edward Tabash, a Constitutional and Civil Rights lawyer in California, and he did have one point about the two parties that I did think was excellent: while they may be much the same on most issues, it's guaranteed that a Republican president will appoint a conservative justice to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. This would change the balance of the court from 5-4 supporting things like "Roe vs Wade" to 5-4 opposing. One of the first results of that would be the further erosion of abortion rights in the US, as well as the separation of church & state, etc. A Democrat is pretty much guaranteed to appoint a progressive judge, who would strengthen the "liberal" balance of the court from 5-4 back to 6-3, as it was before Bush made his appointments.
All in all, the party in power makes relatively little difference while in power, other than shifting tax rates various ways; but Supreme Court appointments can change the entire legal course of the nation for decades.
back to 6-3, as it was before Bush made his appointments
Laura may correct me, but I don't think the general mood of the court has been 6-3 for a looooooong time. It's been 5-4 with O'Connor as the swing well before Drydrunkawolwarcriminalshitforbrains moved to Pennsylvania Avenue.
I took a lot of shit for not voting in 2006. You know, the election where the Democrats were given a mandate to get out of Iraq? The midterm elections that were supposed to turn the country around? How's that working out for ya?
Oh, it's going wonderfully. The Demos promised to get us out of Vietraq and we got an escalation, I mean, a surge. GBA! TGNOTFOTE!
Oh, wait.
Laura may correct me, but I don't think the general mood of the court has been 6-3 for a looooooong time. It's been 5-4 with O'Connor as the swing well before Drydrunkawolwarcriminalshitforbrains moved to Pennsylvania Avenue.
You are correct. Now you have Scalia/Alito/Thomas/Roberts in this corner and Ginsberg/Breyer/Souter/Stevens in this one. Kennedy is the swing vote that will probably keep Roe v. Wade good law (he did last time), but he's farther to the right than O'Connor was. The next justice to retire will likely be Stevens, and he's the most liberal member. Any appointment by a Democrat U.S. president will therefore at best be a wash. If by a Republican, then Scalia, et al., will have a lock on the court for the time being. Then things will get REALLY bad and I'll have more to gloat about from up here.
They moved here from North Carolina? God, the differences for them must be huge... the weather, the shift in religiosity, aspects of civil society. It's flattering when people from the North move here, but they're more like "our" people in the States. Whenever anyone moves here from south of the Mason-Dixon line, I'm always astounded.
...the election where the Democrats were given a mandate to get out of Iraq? The midterm elections that were supposed to turn the country around? How's that working out for ya?
Ouch. So THAT'S what sardonic means! :)
There is no way anyone who examines at the US voting system can trust the results.
I'm not paying close attention to the primaries, but I'm peeking in from time to time. I really don't get the process at all. Why ARE there primaries? Why do they let different states hold them, rather than hold them nationally? Why do different states have different rules? Are you getting a fair results if one party in one state lets everyone vote, but another state only lets registered party members vote, etc. etc. I don't think this is democracy... it's a chaotic mess. It honestly isn't chauvinism that drives me to say I think the Westminster system is better in this regard at least.
The Demos promised to get us out of Vietraq...
Vietraq! We have a winner. :) I hadn't heard that one but I gotta use it.
What should we call Afghanistan? Wait, the Russians used to have their own Vietnam, maybe we could use that as our model. It was... oh, yeah! Afghanistan! There, nailed it. :)
Back when I tried to convince progressive third-party voters to vote Dem in presidential elections, I used the Supreme Court as an argument. But the Supreme Court has been 6-3 for a long time now. That is a lost cause for the foreseeable future.
Beyond that, it doesn't hold up as an argument for me anymore.
First of all, I'd be voting in New York State, which will go Dem anyway, so my vote doesn't matter.
Second, I cannot bring myself to vote for any Democrat candidate at this point. Voting for a Nader-type candidate wouldn't work for this SC effect, either.
And third, and most importantly, I can't participate in that system anymore. It's thoroughly corrupt and I want no part of it.
Then things will get REALLY bad and I'll have more to gloat about from up here.
M Yass, I hope you're kidding about gloating. Many people would like to leave and can't, you know. Not everyone has the options and privilege we do.
They moved here from North Carolina? God, the differences for them must be huge... the weather, the shift in religiosity, aspects of civil society. It's flattering when people from the North move here, but they're more like "our" people in the States. Whenever anyone moves here from south of the Mason-Dixon line, I'm always astounded.
Ah, but they're not from there originally. :) They were both born in the Bronx, and have lived in several places.
The differences are huge. The religiosity (including in the public schools) was a big factor of why they left. Their daughter loves math and science and there was none.
They really liked their NC city in many ways, and it was hard to leave.
I should also mention there are lots of liberal people stuck in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona, etc. who want to move to Canada. I've gotten lots of email from southern states. :)
Re Supreme Court, I've also come to believe that the effect is exaggerated. Most of the important issues are determined on the state level.
For example, when Roe is overturned, very little will change for most American women. Women who live in "slave states" can't obtain abortions now, because of restrictive state laws. Women who live in "free states" will continue to be able to obtain abortions. Women who live in slave states, but have means to travel to a free state can do so now, and will do so post-Roe.
That's just one example of many.
Post a Comment