Tuesday, November 02, 2010

My hopes for today

I hope that a fierce sense of civic duty drives you to vote, regardless of what your volume level has been during this alleged “enthusiasm gap.”

I hope that you’re swayed by independent research and a healthy dose of skepticism, and not by the amount of fancy fliers and trinkets thrown your way.

I hope that you aren’t swayed by a national media that amplifies voter discontent instead of finding out if said discontent has any basis in fact.

I hope that you don’t listen to the demagogues whose job it is to toe their party’s line to ludicrous (and laughable) extremes.

I hope that you’ve pulled yourself away from the choir long enough to hear what the other side is preaching.

I hope conservatives vote their true values and feelings instead of the reactionary hate and spite that has come to define their ideology.

I hope liberals realize that change is not easy or immediate — but even with that in mind, much has been done and much remains to fight for.

I hope that you vote for, not against.


I hope you can’t explain your choices in a few words. In fact, take all day. Critical thinking doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

I hope that abstract, manufactured disgust over “career politicians” and “government spending” and the notion that “both parties are exactly alike” don’t replace common sense and merit on your electoral barometer.

I hope you celebrate if your people and party win — because you care about your country, not just because you want to win or because you derive joy from seeing your opposition squirm.

I hope you treat your vote not as the end, but as the beginning.

Most of all, I hope no one assumes that this election has been decided until the last polling station closes its doors. Because your ballot is the voice that reverberates the loudest.

So get out and vote. Now.

58 comments:

Jester said...

You forgot "Check R for Reliance, Rescue, and Redemption" and "Check D for Dependence, Duress, and Dictatorship". Just sayin'. Have a wonderful day!

Robert Taylor said...

DON'T VOTE! Remember, some countries make voting mandatory, and there are those in the Senate and Congress who are trying to make mandatory voting a reality. Exercise your right to NOT TO VOTE while you still can!

Tom Alday said...

Ian Translator: WHY WON'T THESE UNTHINKING IDIOTS VOTE FOR US!!?!? WHHHHHYYYYYYYYYY?!??!!?

Ian McGibboney said...

Ah, yes, the Clown Triumvirate can't even be civil on a post calling for civility and reason. I saw that coming, sadly, but I still hoped you'd actually be adults for a few minutes. Not for me, but for yourselves and your country. Guess I asked for too much.

Jester, I remember when you could at least try to make a point without a barrage of stupid videos. I'll bet you'd be the first to object if everything I said linked to Rachel Maddow or Al Franken or whoever your boogeyman is. The most plausible link you've made yet was that video of Nelson's laugh from the Simpsons. Also the most accurate representation of the quality of your comments.

Robert, I'll stop voting when you stop using public works, OK? Hope you have a hoverboard. Encouraging people not to vote is appalling. As much I hate everything the GOP and the tea party stand for these days, I wouldn't tell them not to vote. This is a bipartisan call for responsibility with your vote. Sorry it landed with such a thud. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. If I said love your mother, you'd probably all go kill your mothers.

It's because of clowns like you guys that stuff like this gets written in the first place.

Tom Alday said...

I must have missed your call for civility and reason in between all the mocking comments aimed at the beliefs of voters you politically disagree with.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, I called out conservatives for voting out of spite and liberals for being cynical and wanting to give up. Both frustrate me, after all.

Sorry you're so determined to rag on me that you missed that.

Tom Alday said...

It says a lot about how far gone you are that you think this post is a call for "civility and reason". It's that annoying chain letter I get from a long lost uncle disguised as a blog post. The only thing missing was giving it the title FW:FW:FW:FW: OMG YOU MUST READ THIS!!!

Ian McGibboney said...

Thank you for being my barometer of civility, Tom. I was starting to believe everyone else.

Incidentally, the only people who still forward chain e-mails are old-fart right-wingers who laugh about how they got their dog on welfare.

Don't forget to vote, Tom. This isn't a voting booth.

Jester said...

the Clown Triumvirate

I'm a JESTER! Get it right, dammit.

on a post calling for civility and reason

I'm calling bullshit on this one. All your post was REALLY calling for was for everyone to vote Democrat, plain and simple. And you know what? That would have been perfectly fine! Why all the code words and veiled meanings, Ian? Why couldn't you just come out and say it?

I remember when you could at least try to make a point without a barrage of stupid videos

Oh, sure. NOW you admit that you liked my previous posts. I don't believe you, but it doesn't matter. How far did those posts get me in changing your mind? Ever? Nowhere. I failed to help you leave behind a failed belief system, and I'm sorry. But last week I realized a lost cause for what it is. Now I choose the fun & enjoyment of posting any videos or pics I think are right and/or funny :)

P.S. Glad to hear you liked my videos; that's why I'm here. I'm doubly glad to hear that you're still enjoying the Nelson laugh one. It's one of my faves too, cuz it's a gift that keeps on giving :D

Ian McGibboney said...

It's interesting how I try to be fair and address every election-related frustration I have, and yet my conclusion still resembles that which I tried to avoid endorsing here. Maybe that's not so much my fault as it is a damning indictment of the Republican Party in 2010.

If you doubt that, Jester, I have a stack of giant postcards that I received at least two of nearly every day this past week, virtually all of which are plastered with references to "Obamacare" and scary words about debt, your children and politicians who actually know what they're doing. There's brazen hypocrisy, too, in that the outcry over career politicians apparently ends with one of their own (i.e, Roy Blunt). These people are running on hate and fear, not on anything proactive. So spare me the theatrics.

And if you can't argue on your own terms, then you have no reason to be here. You're not funny and your notion that you're just screwing with me because you've "won" is just pathetic.

Tom Alday said...

"the outcry over career politicians apparently ends with one of their own"

Good job at totally ignoring the other established Republicans that got primary'ed this year by conservative candidates (Murkowski, Castle..etc).

Keep crying, the tears are quite succulent.

NOLA Progressive said...

Ian all these asshats are trying to do is stir some type of reaction out of you. You see Tom's dismal existence won't be made whole if you don't "break down" as he views you doing after the Bush election.

That's all this is about. Jester is a joke. He has no business having conversations with adults. Robert, I'm fairly certain Robert is indeed a Martian. It actually physically pains me to say this, but Tom is the only one of them who can manage to articulate any sort of reasonable argument when he really wants to. Sure, it's an argument based on lies, twisting of facts and dates, etc..., but it is at least plausible on its face. These other douchebags are so out of their depth it is strikingly laughable.

Tom would rather play nutbag cyber-stalker than engage in anything that approaches discourse or even argument.

You three guys have to be the most ridiculous Confederacy of Dunces I've ever encountered. That seriously says a lot.

Jester said...

jokes, asshats, Martians, douchebags, nutbags, Dunces

Wow. A lot of childish name calling from a guy who claims others shouldn't be having conversations with adults. Just sayin'.

Would you believe it if Stallone said it?

NOLA Progressive said...

And, you so nicely elaborate my point. Thanks for making that remarkably easy.

Tom Alday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian McGibboney said...

"Tom Alday said:

I twist "dates" now? wtf.

I think a guy that thinks comparing Americans he disagrees with politically to members of the Taliban lecturing others on what is and isn't proper discourse is quite funny.

You're a sad, angry man..."

I'm not going to be your conduit for outing bloggers, Tom. Get a life already.

Tom Alday said...

I'm "outing" him? It's the name on his Twitter account, which he links to from his blog! How is that "outing" him?

Quit being such a paranoid shitheel.

Ian McGibboney said...

Hell, I know that, Tom. I also know your penchant for insinuating that you know more about people than is necessary here.

Either talk about the election or go away.

Tom Alday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian McGibboney said...

Tom, from here on out any comment of yours that shows people's real names without their permission will be removed. I'll let them decide whether or not they want to be outed here.

Tom Alday said...

my god you're such a fucking dork.

It's on his Twitter account you moron.

P.S. I never gave you permission to use my real name.

Hypocrite.

Tom Alday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom Alday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ian McGibboney said...

Um...your name is your username, dude. And it was also the name you used on your blog. And even if I was wrong to do so, that doesn't give you an excuse to do it.

Man, this is how I thought you would act if all your people lost.

Jester said...

you so nicely elaborate my point

So your point is that you're calling others childish when in actuality you're the one being immature? Ok. I agree.

Liberals...

Tom Alday said...

You're the one putting on your authoritarian hat this election night so don''t even try to poo poo how I'm "acting" i.e using a guys name that he freely displays on his Twitter account.

Tom Alday said...

It's funny how as your side loses more and more power with each tally, you compensate by implementing new restrictions and rules. Typically liberal, gotta find some way to hold onto that power as long...as...possible.

P.S. quit saying my name, you don't have permission. It doesn't matter if it's my user name or on my blog, you've already said that displaying your name on a webpage isn't giving express permission. So stop say and/or using my name. Thank you.

Ian McGibboney said...

Yeah, because exposing someone else's real name when they have not done so here is exactly the same thing as me referring to you when you use your real name here.

But OK. I'll just call you Little Boy from here on out.

Tom Alday said...

Exposing!

Lol, like he's a fucking CIA agent or something....or, you know, didn't already have his name plastered on his public Twitter account.

Ian McGibboney said...

Well, until he mentions it here, or there's otherwise a reason to disclose his name, you're just being creepy and juvenile.

Tom Alday said...

Lol, you're grasping.

pathetic.

Jason Dewey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tom Alday said...

^^ lol ^^

Robert Taylor said...

I don't vote because I find the system to be illegitimate.

But also because to vote is to exert political power. Political power is force. Force is aggression. Say no to aggression. Say no to voting!

Oh and Ian, you used a double negative again.

Ian McGibboney said...

So what do you say yes to? Just curious.

Robert Taylor said...

I say yes to the division of labor, free voluntary exchange through social cooperation and the private ownership of the means of production! :)

Ian McGibboney said...

Yeah, good luck with that.

Robert Taylor said...

A little deeper than your "I don't care who you vote for, just vote! Support Big Brother!" isn't it?

Ian McGibboney said...

At least I live in reality.

Giving up what little democratic power I have in favor of some money-driven dystopia is not attractive to me.

Robert Taylor said...

You wouldn't want to live in a world where the most marketable good helps facilitate the exchange of present goods for future goods?

What alternatives do you propose?

Ian McGibboney said...

One in which I have redress of grievances. I (and most people) probably wouldn't do too well in a world governed only by money and economic matters.

Robert Taylor said...

On the contrary-- you'd have a better option than a redress of grievances in a truly Capitalist system: you'd have the choice to take your business elsewhere whenever you were displeased with something.

In a world governed by money and economic matters, you'd benefit no matter how lazy you are because the choices and direction of your actions and transactions would always be left to you, and who would know what you want better than yourself?

Most importantly, because these decisions would be left up to the individuals, and in voluntary trade both parties ALWAYS benefit, you and "most people" would benefit from the rise in the standard of living through continuing division of labor and build up in wealth and capital accumulation in society.

Ian McGibboney said...

As it is now, businesses need tons of regulations just to not screw the consumer at every turn. You expect me to buy the notion that commerce will always be on the level if we remove all incentive for doing so?

If I buy a shoddy product that injures me, you're saying my only solution is to buy another one somewhere else? Or otherwise hope that the seller deigns me worthwhile enough to address the issue? I fail to see how that is anything other than a huge downgrade. Then again, I occasionally think in terms other than that of the almighty dollar.

Robert Taylor said...

What about regulations to stop consumers from screwing producers? How do we ensure that Ian keeps paying for well-regulated products that are designed to his wants? What if he simply grows bored and moves his patronage elsewhere?

You have to ask yourself why a company like Honda would spend millions of it's dollars and everyone up the chain of production in the company would spend millions of cumulative hours producing a product that might injure you. Because if you did get injured and the public found out all their efforts to "screw you" would be in vain and all those people would be out of a job, out of Money and starving.

The market isn't perfect of course. Due to the Scarcity of resources, Honda can't build Ian a tank, and Ian wouldn't be able to afford it. They need to create an affordable car to give Ian and the masses something they can afford and something that is relatively safe. It's a balancing act. Profits and losses. The better their products, the higher the profit Margins and more money they can invest into research into even safer cars.

Ian McGibboney said...

"What about regulations to stop consumers from screwing producers? How do we ensure that Ian keeps paying for well-regulated products that are designed to his wants? What if he simply grows bored and moves his patronage elsewhere?"

What does that even mean?

As for the rest of it, I'm not impressed with the free market-working-itself-out thing. That would take time, not solve the immediate problem and may or may not work. People buy things despite their principles all the time, whether out of apathy, lack of choices, etc. Personally, I'd rather have an authority to check the for-profit entities you have run things and in essence hold all the cards.

You decry government for having an iron fist, but corporations would make it seem like a nurturing mother.

Robert Taylor said...

You decry government for having an iron fist, but corporations would make it seem like a nurturing mother

...or a Big Brother? You're still missing the distinction between government and business. Honda doesn't hold a gun to your head to buy their products. 

My talk of one-sided regulation is an attempt to get you to see the bigger picture. An exchange is between two mutually agreeing parties. You just want to regulate one side: the producers. You fail to acknowledge the other party: the consumer. Hence you are discriminating in your advocacy for a certain type of regulation. In discriminating you don't call for justice, you call for favoritism. You claim to want to better society but in reality you just want to protect the side youre on. Another word for you is Elitist. 

This same discrimination and lack of understanding in how a market works is what makes you call for an "authority" to "check" all the "for-profit entities". All humans act for profit necessarily. Profit is simply revenue-minus-cost. That's it. Ian works at a job because he wants other things like food and shelter. If he doesnt act, or if he acts against his these basic necessities: he dies. He may want to die. But the point is that he acts assuming his action will put him in a better state of affairs according to his subjective values. His lack of omnipotence means he doesn't always make the right decision, but he ultimately acts for profit, always. So you are calling for an authority that would have to "check" everything and everyone at all times...

Which brings me to my final point: Who would bestow this power of authority over the actions of other individuals? God? The people? If the people bestow the authority then ultimately we come back to the same thing: let people make their own decisions because the government is uneccesary. The government is wasteful. The government can never reflect the beliefs of all the people it lords over. It is necessarily elitist. It is necessarily favoritist. It is necessarily unjust. 

Ian McGibboney said...

Yes, I believe in consumer protections. The idea that I'm elitist because I don't also support the same regulation for buyers is, once again, something only you could come up with.

But I don't mind you calling me an elitist if the alternative is to have the people's only power be money or items they may have for bartering. What you're arguing is anarchy at best, fascism at worst.

I believe in a government elected by and for the people that does not have a profit motive and oversees the market to ensure that it is acting in a safe and ethical manner. The one we have isn't perfect, but it's way better than whatever planet you're on.

Robert Taylor said...

"But I don't mind you calling me an elitist if the alternative is to have the people's only power be money or items they may have for bartering. What you're arguing is anarchy at best, fascism at worst."

No, clearly I would be against Fascism, because that would be the flip side of YOUR coin. Fascism= favoritism of business over consumers. Both your call for Socialism and Fascism (Socialism of the Right) ultimately lead to an elite-run reality (Totalitarianism).

And as I asked you before: a world where money and barter aren't the only power people have? EXPLAIN. Who's living in a fantasy world now?

Ian McGibboney said...

You're the one who wants to live in a world with no government. YOU explain.

Hathor said...

Robert Taylor,
Yo don't have to vote for anything, lessor of two evils or else; just write yourself in or your favorite person. There must be something you say yes for, if you choose to get up every day.

I vote, because whether or not I can control the effectiveness of a candidate, I know doing nothing does nothing. There were many that were beaten and killed to be denied that right, so I imagine somebody thought that group would eventually have power enough to have someone like them have the power. Since that's happen, that's "Change that I can believe in."

Robert Taylor said...

@Hathor You and Ian both don't seem to understand simple ethical positions. I don't know how to make it anymore clearer.

If you believe it is wrong to use force to make someone do something, then it should be wrong for the government to force someone to do something as well. That's ethics. It has to be universal, or otherwise you are a hypocrite.

If I vote, I exert political power. Let's say I vote to ban the consumption of alcohol, because I think it is morally wrong... Let's say the regulation I want passes... now, people who want to consume alcohol cannot.

They don't think it's morally wrong, they're not hurting me, they just want to hurt themselves. Should I be allowed to tell them what to do? Should Ian McGibonney?

Who says Ian's choices are superior to my anti-alcohol stance? We can have a debate all day long, but ultimately it comes down to subjective choice. NOT OBJECTIVE FACTS. SUBJECTIVE CHOICE.

Robert Taylor said...

So, to vote, would be for me to DE FACTO support aggression. I don't support aggression, so I cannot vote. It is very simple.

Ian McGibboney said...

A government is accountable to the people. All of us. Nothing else is.

Everything else you're saying is your own view, Robert. The fact that we disagree doesn't mean we're stupid or don't get it.

For some of us, political power is a right we're grateful to have. You want to take that away from us and have bizarre, almost Orwellian justifications for doing so. Well, I'm sorry, but once again, Robert, I'm not sold. Now can we get back on track here?

Robert Taylor said...

@Ian NO. You support aggression. You explain to me how God gives the government the authority to rule over me.

Robert Taylor said...

@Ian explain to me why you should have political authority over the things I do? I didn't give that right to you. So I'm not trying to "take it away" because as far as I am
Concerned, you don't have it. Prove to me who and why you supposedly have it

Robert Taylor said...

Here's your problem: your reasoning is circular. You give the government power and the government gives you the power to vote. Where does the authority ULTIMATELY come from? Explain.

Ian McGibboney said...

You define literally everything other than commerce as aggression, so it's kind of hard not to support it.

Government isn't a question of God. I'm agnostic to the point of almost being atheist. We all have to live together somehow, and a democratic/republic government in my view is the best way to do that. It doesn't rule over us; we use it to do what people as individuals cannot do. That might occasionally get in your way of selfishness and greed, but it also ensures that we have safety standards and a way for all people to have a voice.

I don't see how a world ruled my money and little else would not lead to massive, unchecked corruption and violence. Somalia isn't exactly representing that ideal well, you know.

Ian McGibboney said...

And like it or not, you live in America, not the Republic of Robert. We all have obligations as citizens, even if you don't like it.