It's been a long, long time since I've commented, but having seen this, I've gotta...
I'm a former military brat (my father was in the U.S. Air Force for 23 years before he retired, and I like to joke that I was "Made in England," but "Born in the U.S.A." because my mum, who's from London, was pregant with me when my parents left the U.K. back in 1959).
The U.K. was my father's last assignment before he retired. We lived in a couple of different places, including a village called Shenington, about 6 miles outside of Stratford, and then in Bloxham, not too far from Banbury. I spent the bulk of my high school years (grades 9-11) in the U.K., attending Upper Heyford High School, one of many schools in England for military dependents. (Unfortunately, the school no longer exists, as RAF Upper Heyford has since been turned into a car park, and they've also built housing on the land, too.)
When we lived in England, they had a law that if U.S. military lived more than 20 miles from the nearest U.S. military installation, then they could use the NHS. Well, we did,... and we did, and even back in 1974-1977 the NHS functioned well enough that neither I, nor my brother, nor my parents had any complaints.
I've a friend, who's from Texas, who has lived in England for several years, having married and now divorced a man from there, and she has no intentions whatsoever of returning to the U.S., for a variety of reasons. From her I've learned that the NHS isn't quite as bad as many make it out to be. A few years back, when I had hernia surgery, I explained to her how long I had to wait to have the surgery done here, and asked how I would've had to wait if I'd had the surgery in England. Her answer was that the wait wouldn't've been much different at all.
Several of my schoolmates from UHHS stayed in England, too, and they use the healthcare system there with little or no complaint.
My girlfriend is Portuguese and lives in Porto, in northern Portugal. They don't have the best of healthcare systems in Europe, but neither does it equate to the nightmare that rightwingers like to say that nationalized healthcare amounts to. During my annual visits to Portugal, I've never had to make use of their system, but I have made use of their pharmacies on a couple of occasions, and the cost, even of ibuprofen, is significantly lower than it is here in the U.S.
I'm always telling co-workers (most of whom have rarely, if ever, set foot outside of the U.S.) that much of what's said about healthcare outside of the U.S. is complete crap. I think what I hate the most is the whole "your taxes are going to go up" bull, because the one thing I never hear mentioned is that while taxes might go up, you also won't be paying those insane insurance premiums, and it's highly likely that a person's take-home pay wouldn't even be affected (and that's what would concern most reasonable people). But, as usual, the Right wants to use scare tactics by conveniently leaving things like that unsaid.
On travel, since my life has been (and still remains) one of constant peregrination, a poem I wrote back in January 2005, after having read Robert Browning's Home-Thoughts, From Abroad...
Wanderlust
by G D Townshende
I'm sick for a home I've not yet found.
That's what Browning brought around:
Thoughts of a life lived overseas,
And thoughts of a light, yet travelling breeze.
For my heart is filled with a wanderlust,
To go over there! It's that,... or bust!
Languages:
I was a military brat my first 17 years, and followed that, after graduating high school, with my own 4-year stint in the Air Force. From 1971-1974 we lived in Bangkok, Thailand, where I managed to learn some Thai. My parents took advantage of this by having me act as a translator with taxi drivers as they bartered over the fares.
Cut to 2003: I'm now living in Georgia, just north of Atlanta. I'm attending a new church and am in their membership class. At the beginning of the class, we're all asked to share something about ourselves. As this unfolding of tales works itself around the class, one gent mentions that he used to live in Thailand. My ears perked up, and I looked in his direction. When my turn came, I made a point to mention my own time in Thailand. We look at each other, both of us obviously making a mental note to talk to one another afterwards. After the class is over and everyone is mingling and talking, he and I get together to compare notes, to learn when each other lived in Thailand. Turns out we were not only there at the same time, but attended the same school. He was but a year ahead of me. I then turned the conversation to an old Thai Pepsi jingle that I remembered hearing on the television all the time. Next thing everyone knew, he and I were singing it together.
Cut to 2004: I'm now living in Maryland, but working in northern Virginia. One of my co-workers, I learn, is from Laos. We get to talking, and the conversation drifts to languages, and I learn for the first time that Laos and Thailand share the same language. He helps me to remember how to say 100 in Thai, and I later learn how to say 1000, which increases my knowledge of how to count in that language up to 999,999.
Cut to 2007/8: I'm still in Maryland, still working in northern Virginia, but for a different employer (thanks to a layoff, one of the wonderful benefits of working in telecom). One of my co-workers is from China. We're talking about languages one day, so I mention my meagre knowledge of Thai, and I tell him the story of how I came to relearn how to say 100 in Thai, mentioning in the process the number 99. He gives me a wide-eyed look and tells me that it's the same in Chinese. (There is a difference among the other Chinese numerals—I'm not sure where all the differences lie—but in this one instance the words are either very much the same, or sound very much alike.)
That brought back memories of my recent visit (Sep 7-11) to NYC. Saw Spamalot while I was there. Hilarious stuff!
#189 ::: Meg Thornton If I had to choose one alteration I'd make to the US political system as it stands, it would be the introduction of preferential voting,...
Meg, despite my limited familiarity with the Australian system (thanks to friends and family who live there), "preferential voting" is a term with which I'm not familiar, and one that's been used in this thread a few times. Can you shed more light on its meaning?
#172 ::: albatross Just as an aside, has anyone considered how different the world looked at the start of Bush's term, compared to what it looks like today?
I have. Many times. And I've had very similar reactions, too.
#162 ::: Soon Lee I'm following the US elections as an interested (and sometimes dismayed) outsider; what happens impacts the rest of the world.
I can certainly understand that. My girlfriend, who lives in Portugal, has said as much herself.
#148 ::: Terry Karney I don't know that being on 270 EVs worth of ballots counts as being in contention. I suspect that, for a couple of hundred thousand bucks, I could get myself on the ballot in that many states.
That's not what I mean at all. Remember, I also said that I don't think anyone besides McCain or Obama can win, so I don't mean that I think the others are "in contention" because they're on "270 EVs worth of ballots." It's just my opinion that other candidates who have gained the potential (not that they necessarily have the ability) to win 270 electoral votes should be given air-time. I understand that anyone who can get enough people to sign a petition in a particular State can get their names on that State's ballot in a General Election, but I also think that those who have gained the aforementioned potential have the right to be heard when what's at stake is the office of President. They can certainly have an affect, perhaps even a profound affect, in shaping the discussion/debate being held in the public forum. That's why I see what's going on in the media as at least bordering on censorship, if I might be so bold. By focusing on only two of the candidates, the media has effectively eliminated the rest of the candidates from our field of view. To put it differently, all I'm saying is that I think those with the aforementioned potential ought to be included in the discussion/debate, and that that potential should be the qualifying factor. I think that's reasonable.
_____
#150 ::: Teresa Nielsen Hayden True enough, Teresa. I'll admit that I don't like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, but I do understand that it does come down to that far more often than not. As you can readily see, though, I can sometimes demonstrate a(n) idealistic/perfectionist streak far too wide for my own good.
_____
#153 ::: Kelly McCullough Thanks for sharing that quote, Kelly, and for the link to the post. When I speak about voting my conscience, I do mean that I'm voting for whom I believe will make the world a better place. That said, it certainly gives me reason to pause regarding what I said earlier about that co-worker.
_____
#157 ::: Allan Beatty That's exactly where I'm coming from. I've lived in Georgia, so I've a damned good idea what Bob Barr is like, and I think his "libertarianism" is too superficial. He's still a Republican at heart, in my opinion. At the same time, I don't like McCain, for all sorts of reasons.
When it comes to third-party candidates, I've most often voted Libertarian. At the last election, I was firmly for Kerry. Now? I'm still trying to decide, but I'm definitely leaning towards Obama.
#131 ::: Terry Karney Is your argument the candidates have a real shot at winning? Or that, on paper, they are actually competing for the win?
Something you said later in your comment comes close to what I mean: Should they get more play? Yes, I really think so. Do I think they have any real chance of winning? No.
Basically, my argument is that they've their names on enough State ballots so that on paper they could conceivably (have the capability to) win the necessary 270 electoral votes to take office. To me, that one qualification, that they could conceivably win 270 electoral votes, means they should be given more air-time. I'm not saying they'll give either McCain or Obama a run for their money, only that it's theoretically possible.
When networks like CNN tout themselves with slogans like "No Bias. No Bull." I can't help but think they're wrong on both counts. Their coverage is horribly biased towards the Reps and the Dems (I've not seen any coverage of any other candidates) and that alone makes the slogan chock full of bull.
I don't think that any of the other parties stand a chance of winning, but I'd certainly like to see more coverage given to them. At most, I'd expect that giving them more coverage might garner them a few more votes, but given that in most States electoral votes are awarded in "winner take all" fashion, I don't think it would do any real harm to the process. Rather, it would work to let the public know that there are other candidates out there before they go to the polls and at least give them a glimpse into where those candidates stand on the issues.
#119 ::: Epacris GD (if I may be so informal ) @114: This is an annoyance to me, too.
I can understand not covering ALL of the candidates, but what I can't understand is why coverage isn't given to all of the candidates actually capable of winning the election. As I said, to me, when the major media outlets focus only on the Democrats and the Republicans, I think that smacks of manipulation of public opinion.
My opinion is the same when debates exclude all of those who are capable of winning the needed electoral votes, only in this instance the manipulation is more likely the part of the Democrats and the Republicans.
#115 ::: Pendrift Yup, I'm aware of that, too, although I know far less about the Belgian system.
#116 ::: Soon Lee I'm aware of the Kiwi system, too, having learned quite a bit about it from a friend in Christchurch (although she's now in Moscow).
#118 ::: John Chu Good point.
#121 ::: Epacris Thanks for the links.
One thing that has bothered me for years is the coverage given to candidates who are neither Republican nor Democrat. In this election, for example, there are no less than 14 candidates running for President who have their names on ballots in more than one State. Of these, six can potentially win the necessary 270 electoral votes to become President, and yet those who are neither Republican or Democrat are either completely ignored, or are barely given a footnote of a mention in any broadcast that I've seen on television. That comes across to me as rather manipulative on the part of the networks. Even if one subscribes to the idea that only a Republican or a Democrat stands a chance of winning the election, why does that justify the squelching of any information on the other candidates? (Certainly, information can be found on them on the Internet, but why not also provide it over the air?)
One list of candidates I've found is here, at Wikipedia. The Constitution Party, the Libertarians, the Republicans, the Green Party, the Independent Party, and the Democrats are all those who are capable of capturing the necessary 270 votes.
In the past, I've sometimes voted for candidates who were neither Republican nor Democrat, and some have derided me, saying that I "threw away" my vote. I hate that. I threw nothing away. I voted my conscience. I thought that that is what this is all about, and that it is not about "voting for the lesser of two evils". On that count, a co-worker recently said he plans to vote for McCain, and he qualified and justified it by saying that it's "not so much a vote for McCain as it is a vote against Obama." He's certainly free to do that, and I would never suggest that he's throwing his vote away, but to me that attitude seems to be missing the point.
I will never understand some people, regardless how intelligent they may be (and this co-worker is someone who is very much intelligent).
EDIT: I wrote @111 - Certainly, the outcome does more accurately represent who the majority of voters elected to office (barring any illegal manipulation of votes).
Make that: Certainly, the outcome does more accurately represent who the majority of the people [meaning registered voters] want elected to office (barring any illegal manipulation of votes).
An additional comment on the compulsory voting system ("mandatory democracy") found in Australia (please correct me, Epacris, if I'm wrong):
The fines tend to be fairly small, something like $20-$70AUD, as I recall. Also, a voter who continues to be absent at the polls will then find themselves in court, with the magistrate seeking to find out if there was a legitimate excuse for the absence. It's only after this process has been exhausted that a person can find themselves imprisoned for not voting. I'm not sure what the stipulations are as to how long one can be put in prison for this. Either none of my relatives or friends mentioned it, or if they did, then I've forgotten the details.
#107 ::: Epacris that was a genuine question; I found what you said very ambiguous. Sarcasm perhaps? (...) You wrote "people", not "voters".
Fair enough, and good point, as well. I did mean to say 51% of those who voted. My mistake.
You are correct about voter turnout here in the US, though. A friend I was talking to recently about this cited some interesting information on the subject. I don't recall his sources, but he made a comment that there is a history that only about 16% of the US population (I think) choose who will be president. I should ask him again about this, and have him clarify it, so that I can be more certain about the figures and the context.
Yes, I am a strong supporter of compulsory — & as convenient as possible — turnout, preferential voting, and the ability to cast a deliberately informal vote. You can't abstain visibly from voting here; you can put blank or deliberately 'spoiled' ballot paper/s into the box/es.
I've heard that "informal votes"/"spoiled ballots" (that is, blank ballots) are also illegal, but since there is no way to prove who's submitted such ballots, that that's the one loop-hole in the system.
_____
#108 ::: albatross Is there any evidence one way or another about whether compulsory voting makes for better outcomes? I'll admit my first reaction is to assume this would bring more uninformed voters to the polls, and thus make 30 second attack ads and whispering campaigns more effective, relative to any kind of argument on ideas or beliefs. But I have no data to support this....
Albatross, the basic idea behind it, obviously, is that the election more closely reflects the will of the people. One common criticism is not only that it brings to the polls more uneducated voters, but that such a policy tends to result in election results which favour candidates who cater to minorities. There's a halfway decent article at Wikipedia on the subject.
Generally speaking, they get about 95% voter turnout, with the other 5% being either people who didn't show up, and who will pay a fine, or folk who showed up and submitted "informal votes"/"spoiled ballots", or people who had legitimate excuses for not appearing at the polls (the law does allow for that). These count as "no shows" since no vote was actually submitted. So, it does make for increased voter turnout, but whether the outcome of an election is better or not is hard to say. Certainly, the outcome does more accurately represent who the majority of voters elected to office (barring any illegal manipulation of votes).
#79 ::: Epacris :::
G D Townshende @ 75: I sure hope 51% of the people don't do what they did last time.
Were they the ones who didn't vote at all?
_____
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, unless it's a reference to Australia's law that everyone *must* show up at the polls or risk a fine or imprisonment. My mum is British, and as a consequence I've relatives (as well as friends) in Brisbane and the Gold Coast and elsewhere in Oz who long ago made me aware of this difference in how things work Down Under versus here. I have also been told that while everyone is legally required to show up at the polls, and that while Australia does actively enforce this law, once one has shown up one can also indicate that one wishes to abstain from voting.
I think you know what I meant, however. I would very much prefer that everyone registered to vote would exercise their right to do so. I'm not sure how well a "mandatory democracy" would go over here.
Wow. I'm just... wow. Sounds like a perfect follow-up to Bush. (Excuse me. I think I'm gonna be sick.)
I sure hope 51% of the people don't do what they did last time. That might land me in the hospital!
What follows veers a little off topic, sort of...
When I recently went up to NYC, the driver of the shuttle I took to Dulles had some sort of on-board navigation system giving him audible directions. It was not one that was installed in the van by the manufacturer. Even as a passenger, I found listening to the thing incredibly annoying.
As I work the evening shift and am on the road from about 11.00p to 11.45p making my way home, I'm always seeing cars with similar devices, with the screens suction-cupped to their windscreens. Maybe I'm just too damned picky, but I'd find the light from those displays annoying, too, if I had one in my car.
Just give me a regular map, and I'll pull off onto the shoulder to consult the bloody thing if I need to. Ever since such devices came out, I've been of the opinion that we're now creating a generation whose illiteracy not only causes them to not know the difference between things as simple as to/too/two, their/there/they're, etc, but to also not know how to read a simple map.
Hmmph!
(I guess this is a case where I'm something of a Luddite. Ah well. So be it.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 74 |
| 2007 | 4 |
| 2006 | 25 |
Total: 106 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by G D Townshende:
Show all comments by G D Townshende.