Fondness of Absence

Whether in the military or registered as a citizen abroad, Americans get their ARMED SERVICES OR OVERSEAS BALLOT sent to them in the mail.

Often when I get these ballots there is no way to return them by the election date, since international postage delivery times don’t seem to be taken into account when they send them in the first place. And they tell me, in the material included, that whether or not you vote, it’s illegal not to return the ballot.

So I pay the $1.85 international postage and dutifully put in my votes for sheriff, county auditor, and town school board, to name the few I vaguely remember. I have no way of knowing the people I’m expected to choose between, they’re just text on a ballot slip as far as I’m concerned. They could just as well put Mickey Mouse down as a candidate for all I care. But I know Mickey Mouse – so I’d probably vote for him.

So there’s absentee ballots by mail-in, but what’s next? Electronic touch screen was used in the last presidential election, and I can imagine online voting being used in the future. Apart from security issues to do with the possibility of hacking an election – and that’s probably the biggest issue I have – I’m also worried about perceived affiliations. Just because I voted for someone once doesn’t guarantee my vote for life.

I first registered to vote for the presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush – 2004. It just so happened that I registered through a Democrat-affiliated organisation that was trying to mobilise the international American community. I didn’t count on the town school board being thrown into this voting bargain.

I don’t really have any concrete political affiliations. I wouldn’t vote Republican simply for the fact that they are not Democrat, or vice versa. The same goes for my Australian voting habits in relation to Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Family First, Greens or an independent.

I would argue I vote with my conscience, having taken into consideration the facts (as tenuous as that term in politics might be) as they present themselves. That’s the way democracy should work if you believe the public should actually understand the issues their vote affects. If not, then continuously voting for one particular party without care or consideration for ambiguous personal beliefs, like ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, is the way to go!

But that’s just me, and everyone brings their own ideas to the conversation. I’ll come back to online voting, and my secondary issue with it – affiliation. My point is somewhat lost, since my main example that follows isn’t online or electronic voting as such, but I’ll finish anyway.

I received an email from President Jimmy Carter three days ago. He asked me to go visit a website and request my own absentee ballot online, so I could submit it on time and guarantee my vote is counted.

To quote the beginning and end:

Dear Fellow Democrat,

On November 7, Americans throughout our land will vote in mid-term elections for the House and Senate.

[...]

Thank you for doing your part to ensure a brighter future for America in the world.

President Jimmy Carter

Don’t get me wrong, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to make sure my vote counts, but perhaps ‘Dear Fellow Concerned Citizen’ would have been more appropriate.

I’m not Democrat or Republican, Labor or Liberal; I’m a concerned citizen with the unique privilege of having the opportunity to exercise my democratic right in two different countries at the same time. So don’t count on my association with, or support for, any one party. I reserve the right to cross the floor, in any direction I choose, to cast a conscience vote as and when necessary.

Helen Ester Interview

As described in the earlier post, this interview is with Helen Ester, and tenuously related to her paper submitted to the Democratic Audit of Australia at the Australian National University (ANU).

Second Presidential Debate

Excuse-moi. Je suis en retard (et je suis en retard pour mon age aussi).

Excuse me. I’m late (and I’m also retarded).

We felt the juvenile need to somehow work that into our French oral presentation last semester, so I thought I’d share it with you, since this is a little overdue.

First Presidential Debate

Alright, in order of occurrence:

BUSH twice said 75% of Al-Qaeda have been brought to justice. Given almost 100% of Islamic terrorism is now credited to Al-Qaeda or groups closely associated with them, I’d like to know how the administration came to a total number of Al-Qaeda members to know they have 75% of them.

BUSH said the UN sanctions were not effective in removing Saddam Hussein. Thankfully KERRY very quickly pointed out the effect of sanctions was NOT to remove Saddam Hussein. If the US administration was hoping sanctions would remove Saddam, they had plans in place to get rid of him long before 9/11. I know this is fairly well accepted, but it’s another slip of the tongue by Bush lending credence to the claims.

KERRY seemed to spend far too much time speaking directly to Charles Gibson, the host for the debate. This hurts him in terms of BUSH’s appeal to people’s emotions rather than their intellect. Was that harsh? That was harsh.

BUSH: “Iraq is going to be free, and America is going to be better off for it.” Again, later he talked about spreading freedom, because ‘liberty can change habits’. He said similar things in the first debate, and I said it then, forced freedom is no freedom. Yes, Iraqis are happy to be free from Saddam, but they want to define their freedom. Nobody wants someone else to force so-called freedom on them that is really only looking out for the interests of those who are forcing it. And that’s exactly what the statement says. Iraq hasn’t been freed in the interests of the future of Iraq, but in the interests of the future of America.

KERRY, even when not being accused of being ‘wishy-washy’ or ‘flip-flopping’, is talking about how he’s not changing positions on issues. The man doth protest too much, methinks.

BUSH, in response to a question about America’s social standing in the world community, said people may not agree with the decisions they make, but “people love America”. That’s just false, and the American people should be aware of that. People do not love America. However right or wrong, ill-informed or otherwise their opinions are, the fact is they don’t.

KERRY: “He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. [...] Winning the peace is larger than the military component.” Basically Kerry said he had enough troops to win the war, but not enough to secure peace, which is why the situation spiralled out of control. I think Kerry won that exchange.

When asked what he would do if Iran became an immediate threat, KERRY couldn’t say. Instead of answering the question he chose to talk about what BUSH hasn’t done, and so allowed North Korea and Iran to reach the positions they’re in. Too weak on Kerry’s part. Express an opinion!

Taxes – boring.

I liked what KERRY had to say on abortion. I would have to say I’m generally against abortion, for various reasons, but it’s not a clear-cut issue. Kerry said that as a Catholic he had very strong beliefs about it, “But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.”

Alright, that’s the end of this. Almost everything keeps coming back to the war in Iraq. For me that helps Kerry, but if I was living in the US and worried about taxes, I’d also be concerned with domestic issues. I think talking excessively about Iraq is probably helping Bush in the long run.

First Debate

Just a few things I noticed.

BUSH: A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, will help secure Israel and will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran.

It exhibits a fair degree of arrogance to assume securing Israel would ever be in the plans of any Iraqi. I can only assume he means Iraq will do as they’re told.

Colin Powell has suggested anything is possible in how to deal with Iran, and Greg Sheridan said it will be the biggest issue next year. Is Bush suggesting the use of Iraqi troops in Iran’s enforcement agenda?

Very even debate, but I’d have to give it to Kerry in the end. I think he’s presenting a vision of how to win not only militarily against ‘terror’, but ideologically against the dislike of America worldwide. Bush seems to simply be repeating the ‘fear’ argument while offering no alternatives or solution to that fear.

Have a read at Instapundit if you want better commentary.

Good quality video (RealPlayer) at WashingtonPost.com, as well as a full transcript.

Fox News lets you choose MediaPlayer or RealPlayer and speed (56K/300K)

Second Debate

Change

What have you read?
What have you believed?
What can I tell you?
Will it make you care?
What have I read?
What have I believed?
Do I care? If
You can save your mother,
Will you do it? If
You can save the world,
Will you do it? If
You can save a child in Africa,
Will you do it? How
Will you know who is suffering?
We don’t want to see
The starving,
The refugee,
The death of war,
The evil of corruption.
It cannot go unseen.
It must be changed.
The world must change.
You must change.

*This is the draft referred to in the last post that I had saved. It was the poem above I couldn’t find, somewhat essential.

I got a thing in the mail from Poetry.com asking if I’d like to make a submission for a new book of poetry. No, this doesn’t mean I’m a gifted poet who could make money from some perceived talent. Not at all. Generally I think it means anyone who writes what could loosely be called a poem, and posts it on their site (which I have done before with my other poems), will at some point have their “poetic talent recognised and considered for inclusion in one of the most important volumes of poetry ever produced“. I think those most important volumes come out every couple of months, each obviously more important than the last.

Anyway, on receiving their letter asking if I wanted to be included in the next life-changing volume of poetry, I wrote this poem and sent it in. It was a spur of the moment poem. I guess the proposed name of the volume was wishy-washy and feel-good, evoking images of a glossy cover featuring either kittens, flowers, cute babies or a gag-inducing combination of all three. I wasn’t in that mood. I don’t think the poem really carries anything particularly thought-provoking, and upon reading it again, I don’t like it that much, but they were some of the my first thoughts when I wondered, ‘will people think about things that really matter?’

I had forgotten about it until it was returned to me this week to check and sign off on its publication. But instead of returning it to them, it’s posted here, and here it stays.

I liked this article . Probably only of interest to the journalists. It’s about the lack of media reporting on humanitarian disasters, but particularly ‘genocide’.

The international media don’t send reporters to cover genocides, it seems. They cover genocide anniversaries.

I was making brief, passing mention to this in another post. That had more to do with media pushing for intervention in Bosnia (white genocide) while largely ignoring Rwanda (black genocide).

Do we have to change the gatekeepers (editors who decide what prints) if these events are to make it past the cutting floor? If that’s what has to be done, how can we change the gatekeepers? If we can’t change the gatekeepers, then what? How do we get the story out, let the world know what’s going on?

Serious questions. It really does bother me.

« Previous Page