| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Elaine |
The US presidential electionI know many of you here don't like her, but a part of me wishes Hillary Clinton and Mme. Royal win their respective elections, so that they can join Angela Merkel, Mary McAleese, Helen Clarke and other great gals in the sisterhood in leading the world. 'Cause you all know, us ladies always got something to prove! |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
We do need more women in power. And I do like Mme Royal. As for Hillary.... as I said, we do need more women in power, so I hope she loses... 
|
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Speaking of woman leaders. Our biggest opposition party (Democratic Alliance) will elect a new leader this Sunday. The frontrunner at this stage is the mayor of Cape Town, Helen Zille. I've met her, she's great! I hope she wins.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
2 snaps up and around the world, "Haaaaayyyyy!!  Poor Hil, can't get no respect.
|
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
But seriously now... you guys aren't really going to elect Hilllary as president, are you?      
Seriously, lovely people of the US of A, in all kindness, you can't afford another president the world laughs at.... 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I think it is stupid whenever a political candidate is supported based on gender lines. Politics is not something as frivolous as having a massive ego boost from seeing an unprecedented crop of women leaders in the global arena.
I lionise Baroness Thatcher but that is because she was magnificent. It has nothing to do with she breaking the political glass ceiling. Besides, there is nothing for female politicians to prove. We all know that women are as competent as men in every aspect. But I think there would always be lesser women than men in politics. Based on my own set of general and unscientific observations, I feel that most girls are just not very interested in politics. The rare breed who takes more than a passing interest in politics is an exquisite gem. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
And so it's happened. Helen Zille was elected new leader of the DA this morning. Best thing to happen in SA politics in a long time. 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Has anyone here been keeping up with the Iowa Caucus? (anyone? anyone?...). Mme Clinton was supposed to be a sure thing, but she ended up placing third behind Obama and Edwards. They're saying she'll do better in New Hampshire, but I'm not so sure about that. As for Huckabee's victory... ugh.
|
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Yeh, I was surprised by that! I have no problem with Obama (not a Hillary fan myself, as you probably know), but I'm worried about Huckabee... You guys aren't going to elect him, are you? 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
I certainly hope not! That would be a travesty of major proportions. The last thing we need is another Christian Crusader* in the White House!
- Huckabee supports the ongoing War in Iraq and the troop surge. - In 1992, Huckabee said that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." In 2007, his view that homosexuality is sinful and not normal has not changed. - Huckabee opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions. - In 1992, Huckabee indicated that he was against homosexuals serving in the military, and did not believe that women should be allowed in combat - Huckabee is against gun control. - Huckabee supports the death penalty - Huckabee has voiced his support of creationism. He was quoted in July 2004 on Arkansans Ask, his regular show on the Arkansas Educational Television Network: "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Huckabee also stated "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally." - Huckabee has expressed concern that Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a distraction from the Global War on Terror. - In a 1992 statement, Huckabee advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general population.[156] In 2007, Huckabee no longer advocates such an isolation, but he stands by his earlier view, saying that in 1992 "there was still a great deal of, I think, uncertainty about just how widespread AIDS was, how it could be transmitted. So we know more now than we did in 1992, all of us do -- hopefully."[157] However, by 1992 it was well known that HIV/AIDS could not be spread by casual contact.[158][156] In the same statement, Huckabee also opposed increasing federal funding for HIV/AIDS research and suggested that Hollywood celebrities should provide additional funds instead. Huckabee now supports additional funding for HIV/AIDS research. - Huckabee has credited divine intervention with some of his political success. *Note: I am in no way opposed to Christians, just the intolerant ones who try to impose their beliefs on others and insist that it's the only way to salvation. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Agree with the small print. The man is nuts (saying that as a Christian, his ideas are not what I could possibly support, we have a political party here [thankfully with little support] with similar ideas). |
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
The thing is, he made a bunch of hateful comments before he decided to make a go for the White House, and now those comments have come back to haunt him. So of course now he's been backpedaling and tweaking his remarks to make himself more palatable to the general public. But I ain't no fool! A leopard cannot change his spots overnight. Does that political party of which you speak have any chance of winning your elections? What's so scary is that such parties can easily win over here. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
[quote="Elaine"]A leopard cannot change his spots overnight.
Not a change, thankfully! They call themselves the African Christian Democratic Party (democratic, yeh right), they got only about 2% of the vote last time. But they do make a lot of noise. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Our biggest opposition party, the Scottish Labour Party, has also recently 'elected' (i.e. unopposed, like Gordon Brown) a woman leader in the form of Wendy Alexander: 
There has already been a major scandal surrounding her, because it has recently emerged that she accepted illegal donations during the run-up to the election last year. We also have Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister: 
And Annabel Goldie, the leader of the second largest opposition party, the Scottish Conservatives: 
|
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
He's got no chance, has he ? I'm glad Clinton got a good slap in the face : she ended after Edwards, no ? The only problem I've got with Obama is his mentioning religion (bible, god, etc) everytime — at least that's what I read in the papers here. Is that religious obsession true ? |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
My man, Dennis Kucinich, wasn't included in ABC's New Hampshire debate. Kucinich filed a complaint against the network. I agree with his objections, as expressed in his interview with Bill Moyers (scroll down in the article to see the video of Bill Moyers Journal, January 4). Among other things, he said, "How can you have a debate if you don't have a voice that challenges all the others?" | ||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Personally, I make it a point not to give a crap until much closer to the elections -- partially because all of the posturing annoys me, and partially because so much can change between now and then.
I would have no problem voting for Hil, myself. Obama strikes me as a flash in the pan, or better yet, a candidate for another year. If we had to have a Republican in the Oval Office, I'd prefer Giuliani or McCain (who, out of all the candidates, probably actually deserves the post -- carefull what you wish for, though, Johnny!). They aren't likely to win their party's nomination, though, I think. Too moderate. Republicans seem to like their politicians more at the far end (off the deep end?) As for not needing another president the world laughs at, well, we're not likely to notice or care about any chuckles abroad. Sorry, but it's true. 'Cause when you get down to it, we mainly elect the president for internal usage. Foreign policy rarely makes or breaks any of them, no matter how good or bad they are at it. It's the perceived success or failure of their domestic policies that resonate with the average voter. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's certainly true. Actually, soon after Sarkozy's election last year, I remember seeing some Americans on a forum who had interpreted it primarily as France voting in favour of increased co-operation with the United States. But as you say, ultimately, that sort of thing doesn't really enter into it too much. Likewise, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was always massively unpopular amongst the general population in Britain, and its unpopularity only increased as the venture progressed. But although Labour did loose relatively considerable support in the 2005 election to the Liberal Democrats and other parties who had opposed the invasion, but ultimately, the Iraq war in itself did not motivate enough people enough to want to kick Tony Blair and his Labour government out and vote Charles Kennedy and a LibDem government in (though it should be noted that only 35% of people who voted actually voted Labour in that election, which is even crazier than the American system in my view). |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Not being an expert in the US politics , I think my support would be for Obama if I had to shoose one. the only second choice for me would be Hilary, but I would have some problems with her position in favour with the previous foreign afairs policy, and with the fact that it would make a 25 years story made only with Bush and clinton families... which is for me a real problem for a democracy.
I don't know Obama well, maybe some things would bother me too, but finally I naturally would have more sympathy for him. The fact of being from a 'mixed' origin would be for me an important symbol I would be glad the US show to the world if I was American. The same way I am quite happy to see that in the new generation of french polititians we begin to see more and more "colored people" as we politically correctly say. In the actual governement, three of them are the most famous, and are at once women and of African origins - Even if we can disagree with their actions or political thinking, or accusing Sarkozy of shoosing them just for being a symbol or a message for the populations of Africa roots in France. 
But I'm seriously ask myself if the "deep Americans", traditional republicans (and maybe some democrats too?) are ready to elected a person who is seen as black? |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
One interesting thing about Obama is that he doesn't really make an issue of him being black. I've heard some people accuse him to distance himself from the 'African-American' community somewhat, believing that this is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the majority of Americans. But ultimately, he grew up mainly outwith the continental United States and then went to Harvard, so it seems quite possible that he doesn't really identify with the majority of black Americans anyway.
Out of the Democratic candidates, I support either Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. Incidentally, Mike Gravel is actually a Unitarian (like me), though I wouldn't want to seem biased in favour of him because of his religious affiliation.  But unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the Democrats will choose either of those as their official candidate.
Ultimately, I will probably support whomever the Green Party choose as their candidate. I don't know much the various Green candidates at all, but for some reason I rather like Cynthia McKinney: 
I'm slightly suspicious though because she was a Democrat until a few months ago, which makes me wonder the extent to which she really advocates Green politics as I understand it. Actually, former Green candidate Elaine Brown withdrew her candidacy and resigned her membership of the Green Party a few weeks ago on the grounds that the leadership of the party had been 'seized by neo-liberal men' who have transformed it into 'a repository for erstwhile, disgruntled Democrats'. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Mouais. I don't think the "symbols" addressed to whom it may concern are really working... 
Rachida is just a fear-mongering, incompetent right-wing UFO about to collapse. Free Dior outfits won't save her from placardisation into the VIIth arrondissement. 
I won't be too harsh on Fadela because she's so pathetic. 
And Ramatoulayé's outstanding contribution regarding France's foreign affairs and human-right policy is best explained by Roselyne... |
||||||||||||||||
| fab |
ça c'est une autre question... ;) |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
That's funny. My mother and her boyfriend, who probably can't get any "greener" in real life, are very familiar with Cynthia McKinney, and they can't stand her. They of course, live in Georgia, and if I recall correctly, she's been in their living room. But at this point, they seem to consider her a big bowl of crazy. It was just something they mentioned during Christmas. Since I have no interest in Georgia politics, I refrained from inquiring further, so I;m afriad I can't elaborate. Don't be too concerned about her having been a Democrat until recently. In the US, the Green party is a fringe party with little hope of winning many elections even at the local level (except in California), much less at the national level. So most people who lean toward that end of the political spectrum but want to be practical -- i.e., not throw their votes away on a lost cause -- usually ARE Democrats. There is no real reason why people can't switch back and forth from Democrat to Green; the two are ideologically similar. It would be far less probable to find someone who was both a Republican and a Green, since there is much less common ground there. Obama's just never grabbed me. And truth be told, I grow very tired of people running on the platform of "I'm a Washington outsider, so my very LACK of credentials/experience/knowledge makes me the perfect candidate to clean up the mess that is Washington" -- bullshit. If there was ever a job that required that you know who to schmooze and what buttons to push to get things done, it's the presidency. I would rather see someone who knows the business get the job. After all, we only hire them for 4 years -- 8 if we really like them -- and that's hardly enough time for on-the-job training. You need to hit the ground running. As in any job, it's part impressive credentials and part who you know. In other news, my governor, Bill Richardson, just dropped out of the race. He never had a chance, as far as I could see -- we pay little attention to him even here. He was once ambassador to the UN, though, as well as one of the few officials North Korea would negotiate with. But he looked like a basset hound, and no one had ever heard of him.... |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Wow. I must admit, when I was watching her broadcast, I did find it irritating the way she kept saying 'come home to the Green Party'.
I see what you mean. That sort of thing happens here as well — I know that there are Labour politicians who are considerably more left-wing than the neo-liberal and neo-conservative policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, for instance. And if I wanted to be more 'practical' then I could've joined the SNP — it's such a broad bunch of people that I would've fitted in somewhere. But then the counter to that is that there'd be a lot more internal competition within the party, and that the SNP probably wouldn't choose someone as left-wing as me to be a candidate for anything anyway. But I'm surprised though that you say that the Democrats and the Greens are ideologically similar. I tend to think of the Democrats as basically just another neo-liberal 'business as usual' party devoted to serving the interests of multinational corporations, and which on absolute terms is pretty similar to the Conservative Party here. (Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate in the London mayoral election, who is considered pretty right-wing even within the Conservative Party, has recently announced his support for Hillary Clinton). I'd certainly view the Democrats as more similar to the Republicans than to the Greens overall. But maybe I'm missing the point here. Am I right in thinking that both the Democratic and Republican parties are effectively very broad coalitions, and that politicians voting against their party's official policy is actually very common in the US? I think politicians here tend to be far less independent — they're generally expected to vote according to their party's policy, and dissent is frowned upon and called 'rebelling'. |
||||||||||||||||
| Travis |
I for one tend to just view American politics as hopeless, and view all the parties and candidates as 1) for the status quo, 2) for even stronger corporate interests than in the status quo, or 3) loony and not capable of that necessary to bring about a new social order. I was for a while honestly hoping that Bush would just seize absolute power and make himself dictator so we could be rid of the current political system (which has clearly failed to achieve its purported goals) and so that the government and corporations could be fought more directly rather than having one be constrained to "legitimate" means that are designed so that one will fail if one does not effectively represent the existing elites by the very notion of the system's legitimacy. At least dictatorships are obviously oppressive as opposed to being cloaked in a notion of "freedom" and "rights" as the current American state has, while being little freer in reality for the average person... | ||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Do you think Richardson might get tapped for running mate? So far it looks like either Clinton or Obama will get the Democrat nomination, and they're only Junior Senators, for crying out loud. Neither of them have any executive experience! At least Gov. Richardson would lend them some credibilty in that area... Hello everyone, by the way  Long time, no see!
Unless Rosie O'Donnell has her way and the Second Amendment is repealed, this is unlikely (to put it mildly) to happen.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Travis |
Had Bush actually attempted such, the only thing that could have stopped it would be a military rebellion against his government, as they would be the only people able to successfully openly oppose the national civilian government by force of arms. Of course, knowing the US military, that would not have happened. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
I think you're confusing the US with Venezuela, Travis. I've lived (not visited, but lived) in countries where there is real oppression going on, where newspaper reporters have to hire bodyguards for themselves and their families, and where government corruption is so bad that people are kidnapped in broad daylight to be held for ransom while police physically turn to look the other way (if they're not outright helping the kidnappers for kickbacks). Half of my husband's family moved to Hell -- I mean, Miami -- when Chavez came to power. Hell, my siblings and I are named after my mother's cousin, who "disappeared" one night with his wife. They were student protesters against President Ferdinand Marcos.
The United States is a loooooong way from that level of corruption you fantasize about. That would require a profound lack of formal education which you could only really find in the truly impoverished, and a great deal of apathy from its citizenry. These are conditions that you just don't find here. The vast majority of Americans are middle class with at least a high school diploma... and if there's one thing Americans aren't apathetic about, it's their politics and where their tax dollars are going. |
||||||||||||||||
| Travis |
What I am referring to does not necessarily have to be so, well, dramatic, and honestly I think that the American public is sufficiently apathetic that they would do little to nothing about such if it happened (even if they complained about such verbally). Such need not require disappearing the opposition, putting soldiers in the streets, and closing newspapers and like. At the peak of Bush's power such could very well just have happened with a whimper, with Congress being turned into a rubber stamp and being eventually sidelined and through executive orders being used essentially to rule by decree - which had largely already occurred at that point. Elections could even be openly continued with executive orders being used as the primary means of wielding actual power at the national level. At the same time, legislation could be pushed through so as to authorize arbitrary arrest and detainment at the whim of the government - which has already effectively happened for non-citizens. Even if the Supreme Court ruled against such, it would wield practically no actual power to enforce its decisions. At that point, the government would already be effectively autocratic in nature, even though the trappings of a federal republican state would still exist. All that really needs to happen at that point is for some national emergency to eventually come along, at which elections could be "temporarily" suspended pending the conclusion of said emergency - at which they would never actually be resumed. Such would not need to be even as dramatic as the typical bloodless military coup d'etat, and those not paying close attention to politics would likely not even notice that it happened until the next presidential election came along and the voting stations were closed. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Um, well, no, I think Republicans and Democrats have polarized themselves around two different attitudes. Perhaps that is just because I am an American, and am used to thinking of them as two ideological poles. An outsider might not have the same sense of them. The simplified version is that Republicans tend to be right-wing, pro-business, and against heavy government involvement (finacially or legislatively) in everyday affairs, social programs, etc. They favor fiscal prudence, individualism, and the market. Democrats tend to be left-wing, and more interested in collectivism and social programs, regulatory agencies, and leveling mechanisms (in the sociological sense). They tend to be far more sympathetic to the causes of environmentalism and government regulation of industry and the idea of looking at collective outcomes versus individual success, and that's where they overlap with the Greens. Now, with that said, they ARE indeed very broad coalitions, and two Democrats or two Republicans from different ends of their respective parties' spectrums might well find that they had serious differences of opinion on many subjects. My mother and I are both Democrats, and yet we differ marked on such "hot-button" issues as gun control and the death penalty. Neither politicians nor voters expect every member to toe some imaginary party line on every issue; they expect them to still vote their own conscience and opinions. Nor does being a member of one party mean you can't find things that you agree with in the other. I do admire the Republican attitude toward individualism and fiscal responsibility. I also admire the Democratic attitude toward collective social responsibility, which means that sometimes I have to find a balance between these things that works for me. On the other hand, just because I have more affinity for the Democrats doesn't mean I agree with everything in the party platform -- I'm still just me, with my own ideas. Probably where you see major similarities between the two parties is in the fact that they are both still strongly underpinned by basic American cultural attitudes. Americans tend to be strongly competitive and business-oriented regardless of party affiliation. Americans as a bunch really do prize the individual, reward success, are suspicious of failure, and view the government as a necessary evil to be kept on a short leash. Even Democrats don't generally aspire to the kind of cradle-to-the-grave care that Europeans often expect from their governments -- that would be creepy. These are the basic social and cultural assumptions that underlie most Americans' upbringing -- how individuals accept or reject all of those underpinnings is up to them, but they are familiar to all of us -- and because the majority of Americans belong to one of those two parties, there will of course be broad similarities on many fronts that are divided mostly by degree, rather than radical differences. So in that way, I can see how you're wondering well, what's the difference, then? But from within, there is one. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
Exactly. There's much less party discipline in American legislatures than in the Westminster system. Over here it's no big deal if a congressman or senator votes against their party line, as long as it doesn't piss off their constituents too much. I think our legislative system is much more individualistic than yours: over here, for example, campaigning and fundraising is done mostly by the individual candidates, rather than by the parties. For congressional elections, you won't see ads saying "Vote Democrat for Congress", but rather ads for your local candidate saying, "Vote John Doe, Democrat for Congress". The parties are less cohesive ideologically, more like broad coalitions, and the leadership has much less control over its members. You'll hear all the time about 30 Republicans siding with the Democrats on this bill, 20 Democrats siding with the Republicans on that bill, and so forth. We don't really have concepts of "rebelling" or "votes of (no) confidence". As for the ideological positions of the parties, I think it's that the Democrats are basically everything to the left of the (American) centerline, and the Republicans are everything to the right, with some overlap. Even though though the two parties may be quite similar on the level of the big mainstream party leadership, it's perfectly natural for real leftists and social democrats (like Kucinich) to gravitate toward the Democratic Party. They might feel even more at home in the Green Party, but the combination of gerrymandering and first-past-the-post elections means that the Greens are not only puny, inviable and irrelevant as a political force - they can be truly detrimental to the center-left movement by spoiling the election for the Democrats and throwing it to the Republicans. Any disgruntled Gore supporter from 2000 would tell you that Ralph Nader stole Democratic votes and threw the election to Bush. (Without the spoiler effect, Gore would almost certainly have won New Hampshire and Florida, and thus the election.) So by joining the Green Party, you consign yourself to the perceived political fringe and abandon any hopes of ever being elected. That's the reason why Kucinich is a Democrat. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
'Cause who knows how much their constituents buy the party line, either.
Thrilled to have you back, Joanne -- you'll be adding some spice to this stew!
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's probably true. I think it's also the case that a party broadly equivalent to the Republicans (on absolute terms) doesn't really exist here, unless you count very minor parties with even less influence than the Greens. As such, politicians advocating the sorts of policies that Republicans tend to advocate would gravitate towards the more right-wing end of the Conservative Party, at least partly because they wouldn't really have anywhere else to go. It's obviously not appropriate for me to try to project the US presidential election onto a British political setting, but in a way I suppose it's kind of inevitable that I will — and from my perspective, both Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (for example) could easily be Conservatives here.
I see what you mean — interesting response, by the way.  Though to be honest, when I look at the policies of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats these days, I ask myself the same question. Even the SNP ultimately don't really differ much from the other three main parties overall in my view, except that they support Scottish independence.
Thought so. I was actually thinking more about Scotland, where MSPs tend to have even less independence than MPs at Westminster, but I agree that what you say probably still stands. In the Scottish Green Party, the Policy Document has been compiled by members after voting on every last line at party conferences over the years, and contains detailed policy on more or less everything where policy could exist. This document is effectively binding on our MSPs — for a Green MSP to vote against the official Green policy in the Parliament without a very good reason (e.g. that circumstances had suddenly changed significantly) would be pretty much unthinkable. Having said that, the Greens here are perhaps a bit more 'extreme' in this regard than the other parties.
Likewise, we don't really have concepts of 'draft candidates', though such has been considered by some parties in the run-up to the London Mayoral Election (the closest thing to a presidential election that exists in the UK).
Incidentally, a month or so ago, one of my housemates accused 'me' (i.e. Greens) of being responsible for Bush's election in 2000. My view, however, is that a Green vote is a Green vote — it is not a 'stolen' vote pre-allocated to another party which views itself as worthy of that vote for whatever reason. If I had been American and eligible to vote in 2000, then I probably would have voted for Ralph Nader, because I could not have supported Al Gore's policies. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I understand what you're saying, but wouldn't you have at least preferred Gore over Bush? I think the solution is to use preferential voting (a.k.a. instant-runoff voting), like they do for Australian legislative elections. This would eliminate the spoiler effect, and it would enable people to vote idealistically and pragmatically at the same time. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Yes, although I question how much difference it would have really made. I do by and large view Gore as a positive influence based on what he does now, but ultimately I have no way of knowing what he would've done if he'd actually been president. And I don't really believe in tactical voting anyway — if I don't vote for my own party, how can I expect anyone else to vote for it? The Westminster election here still uses a first-past-the-post system, and I fully intend to vote Green at the next election. That said, I live in Menzies Campbell's constituency, which is an ultra-safe Liberal Democrat seat — he's going to get in anyway regardless of how I vote. I must admit that I might consider voting SNP if I lived in a constituency where they had a chance of winning. However, I realise that this sort of thing is not directly comparable to voting in a US presidential election, even if there are certain similarities.
It sounds like a good idea. We use single transferable vote for local councillors in Scotland, which is based on a similar principle. Do you think that such a system is likely to be introduced in the US any time in the foreseeable future though? |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
Sadly, no. In fact it's rarely even mentioned. Maybe we'll get it along with single-payer health care... |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Agree. Hopeless is the right word.
Arf ! Why would he bother to organise a putsch when all you need is either steal the elections (2000) or proclaim red/orange/whatever alert on TV every two minutes a couple months before the elections (2004) ?
True. Not to mention illegal abduction, unlawful detention & barbaric torture inflicted on hundreds of *innocent* citizens from so many UN Member-States. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Here's a good pick your candidate quiz. Most of other ones I've seen don't have weighted questions. To me, protecting states' rights and the Constitution are more important than stem cell research, for example... but that's just me.
If they had asked something about government growth or the tax code, I'm sure my Ron Paul score (3) would have been higher. As it is, my results are what I expected: 28 McCain 14 Thompson 14 Giuliani -11 Romney -11 Edwards -12 Huckabee I'm telling you right now, if the presidential race turns out to be between Edwards and Huckabee or Romney, I'm packing my bags for Australia. I loathe all of them equally. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Hmmm...
82 — Kucinich 69 — Gravel 51 — Obama 46 — Clinton 42 — Edwards 38 — Dodd 17 — Paul -21 — McCain -31 — Thompson -34 — Giuliani -55 — Huckabee -74 — Hunter -75 — Romney What I didn't realise until seeing that was that Obama is opposed to the death penalty, whilst Clinton and Edwards aren't. I think that might be enough for me to notionally favour Obama over Clinton or Edwards. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
In this one, I landed almost in the center of the upper right quadrant. None of the candidates represent me particularly well. Woe is me...  Why aren't there any candidates who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal?? WTF??  Couldn't some Reagan Democrats (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) and small-L libertarian Republicans break off from the nutjobs in their respective parties and form a party on their own?
Goddammit, this is why I really hate presidential election years. To me they're just 12+ months of frustration...culminating in an overwhelming feeling of cold dread. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I ended up in the far top left-hand corner. However, the only candidates (from the two main parties) I'd view as 'socially liberal' are Kucinich and Gravel, but for some reason they were not included in that. The others all seem rather conservative to me: Obama supports the death penalty and the Patriot Act, and is opposed to same-sex marriage. In addition to that, Clinton also supports bans on flag burning, and has said that she is 'a strong believer in executive authority'. Neither appear to be in favour of the legalisation of cannabis or other currently illegal drugs for recreational use. Edwards has specifically stated his opposition to the legalisation of cannabis, in addition to supporting the death penalty and opposing same-sex marriage (read: institutionalised discrimination on the grounds of gender). |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
WHat's the whole Michigan thing about? Why couldn't they move their date, and aren't the Democrats supposed to have the primary on the same day as the Republicans anyway? And if so, why don't the Republicans have the same problem? | ||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
quite reasonable
very reasonable
if it is to be "marriage" - reasonable
very reasonable. BTW: do you support flag burning?!
extremely reasonable. I wish someone had done the same with alcohol long time ago - now it's too late.
I strongly believe "marriage" is a relationship between "man" and "woman". |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The point I was making was that I don't view those three candidates as 'socially liberal' on the basis of those policies. I was not debating whether they were 'reasonable' or not, even though it should be obvious that I don't support them.
No, because burning releases carbon (and other) emissions, causing environmental damage. I would advocate tearing or cutting the flag up if people wanted to destroy a flag for whatever reason. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Don't worry - it was just my private opinion (voiced in public) of which of these policies are reasonable to me.
In Poland you would go to jail, because our Constitution puts national symbols under special protection. And this is highly reasonable. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I don't agree that this is reasonable at all. To me, flags are just pieces of fabric with patterns on them which represent something. We can determine for ourselves our attitude towards what they represent, and then we can decide what we want to do with the fabric — which could include making curtains out of it, wearing it, cutting it up into tiny pieces and sewing it back together again in a patchwork design, or whatever you wanted. But ultimately, I've always lived in a society in which this kind of government-enforced patriotism simply doesn't exist. There are no laws against flag burning here. We don't have anything resembling a 'pledge of allegiance' in schools either, like there is in many other countries. To me, these sorts of things are very unknown, sound overly authoritarian, and just seem generally unnecessary. If either Gordon Brown or Alex Salmond proposed introducing a law which prohibited the destruction of either British or Scottish flags, they'd be ridiculed; and the idea that the 'offenders' would actually go to gaol would be unthinkable. This is besides the fact that British 'national symbols' are controversial anyway, and actually have quite negative connotations for a lot of people in Britain — my dislike of the Union Jack is certainly not a rarity. And especially in Scotland, where the British flag generates controversy almost every time it's flown — I'm sure it won't be long before there's another political row over which flag should be flown from the top of Edinburgh Castle, for instance. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Oh, God. It's soooo retarded, André. But if you must know (and shave off five I.Q. points in the process), I shall oblige.
Michigan violated Democratic National Committee rules by holding its primaries before Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). For some arbitrary reason, the only states that are allowed to hold Democratic primaries before Super Tuesday are New Hampshire and South Carolina. (This is why you see us Yanks go bonkers over these pissy little states which hardly represent the demographics of the rest of the country... they're the only means for us to see how the presidential race is going.) Michigan violated these rules, and so the DNC punished Michigan by disinviting all 156 of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention. In retaliation, the Michigan Supreme Court basically said, "Fuck you, DNC!" and allowed the primaries to go ahead, with each candidate needing at least 15% of the popular vote to get delegates. The thing is, when Michigan broke DNC rules, all the Democratic candidates made a pledge to each other not to campaign in Michigan. Then they withdrew their names from the ballot...except Dodd (who has since dropped out of the race) and Clinton. The Michigan Democratic Party urged everyone who wanted to vote for Edwards, Biden, or Obama to vote for "Uncommited" instead of writing-in their candidate's name (because the necessary paperwork to ensure any write-in votes for them would be counted was due about two weeks ago, and none of those candidates filed them.) So blah, blah, blah...drama drama drama...Michigan Democrats didn't want their votes to go to waste, so they voted for Clinton, who ended up getting a large chunk of Michigan delegates. Of course, the others are bitching about Clinton not playing fair, etc., etc., drama, trauma, drama...
They did, actually. There were a couple of states that were punished by the RNC for planning to have their primaries before Super Tuesday. This happened last November, though, and the RNC didn't strip the states of all their delegates. And there was no soap opera about one candidate backstabbing the others by breaking the "gentleman's agreement" not to campaign in said states. It wasn't very newsworthy. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Jeez... sounds like much ado about nothing. Who determines the dates of the primaries?
BTW, I did that test. Apparently I'm a Hillary supporter... 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Hmmm...Tradition, more than anything else. DNC rules are that all caucuses and primaries are to be held on or after the first Tuesday of the February of the presidential election year. The exceptions are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. RNC rules are similar, except there are no exceptions, and they only apply to primaries. The problems were that, late last year, Michigan's State Senate voted to bring the date of its primaries up to Jan 15, and that Florida's governor signed a bill to move its primaries to Jan 29. Traditionally, New Hampshire is the first state in the nation to hold primaries (don't ask why, I doubt anyone knows), so they moved up the primaries to last week. Also traditionally, South Carolina is the first southern state to hold its primaries, so the SC primaries were moved to Jan 19 to precede Florida's. The RNC decided to penalize the four states by cutting the number of their delegates in half, and Florida and Michigan accepted that decision in exchange for more national prominence in the primary process. The DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of its delegates, although it's highly unlikely they'll be able to successfully carry out these penalties.
Er... I wouldn't worry too much about it. With the exception of Ron Paul, all these candidates have been flip-flopping like crazy for the past year; especially McCain and Clinton. They've probably flipped positions 50 times since that test was written.
|
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Hm, so she was just flip-flopping past me when the test was compiled...
Actually, that's my impression as well... that most of the candidates are being.... er, let's just say... pragmatic in their views.... |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
To me, the interesting thing about this election is that there are actually some good candidates on both sides. I'm a Democrat, but I can easily respect Giuliani and McCain. Not going to vote for them, but I could respect them if they won. I don't expect to see perfectly eye-to-eye with anyone, or find the ideal match in my own party's offerings, so I don't mind if Hillary or Obama differ from me on this issue or that. And to be honest, I would probably LIKE candidates like Kucinich more than the frontrunners, but because I've already written them off as Not Going To Happen, I pay them no attention. Which, sadly, then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy..... | ||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
True, flags are purely symbolic. But burning them is an equally purely symbolic act -- the two go hand in hand. But, for me, the Constitution is pretty darn sacred and should only be tampered with for REALLY serious matters. Ending slavery. Enfranchising half the population. That sort of thing. You don't mess with it for petty little things like defining marriage (which is a state matter and not a federal one, anyway) and burning cloth. That's the issue I have with these things -- turning the Constitution into a platform for people's personal opinions and prejudices. |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
So true, and also applies to a country such as SA where we vote for parties, not individual candidates. You find the one which you agree most with on the issues that matter to you the most, and vote for that one. That doesn't mean the rest are bad. (Funny thing is, despite my earlier remarks about Ms Clinton, I probably would've voted for her if I was American.... But don't tell anyone I said so, please.) |
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
True again. Same thing happens here. Our constitution is constantly being abused to justify views from all sides, things which have nothing to do with what the constitution should be about. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Romney won the Nevada caucus, and Huckabee looks to be doing well in South Carolina...  So what do you guys think? Where would I fit? Gold Coast, Sydney, or Melbourne?
|
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
The problem is that what is not a serious matter for you it can be immensely important for others. Like defining marriage as a relationship between man and woman or dealing with flags, which represent the most precious values for many (I would even say for majority) of people. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The biggest problem I have with universally defining 'marriage' as 'a relationship between a man and a woman' is that it assumes binary gender — that is, that everyone is either a man or a woman. This is, in my view, an oversimplification at best. Personally, I often have difficulty to think of myself as a 'man' — perhaps at least partly because 'maleness' and 'masculinity' have quite negative connotations for me. And when I actually think about it, I find 'gender' quite a weird concept — I'm defined as 'male' by mainstream society essentially because of my outward appearance and not a great deal else. Yet I'm apparently expected to live according to a certain prescribed gender role because of this.
As far as I'm concerned, religious organsations can do more or less what they like with respect to gender and marriage. So if the Roman Catholic Church wants to define everyone as either a man or a woman, and say that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that's fine by me. What I object to is the government defining everyone in this way — I'd prefer it if the government stayed out of this kind of thing. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Well, there are people who find "colours" a weird concept because what is "green" for them is "red" for other people - and vice versa. And this is of course a pathological state that medicine describes as "daltonism". Nobody, however, comes to an idea to re-define colours and change the rules of traffic. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
I think Uriel and I feel similarly about this, so if I may... She's not saying that those issues shouldn't be important. But the US Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage (same-sex or otherwise), which means that any legislation on marriage should be left to the individual US states. If a majority of people in a US state vote that marriage between two people of the same sex is okay, why it shouldn't be, in that state? Similarly, if a majority in another US state vote not to allow same-sex marriage, why not? The beauty of living in here is that each state runs itself almost like its own country, and the people who don't agree with the laws of the state they live in can move to another one where the laws suit them better. 220+ years of this country's history have shown that people can govern themselves as they see fit, and have no need of an overbearing federal government to legislate morality. We're all different, so not everyone has the same values...but everyone should be allowed an equal chance to pursue personal happiness. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Absolutely — I think I'd say that that is one of my favourite things about the United States.
|
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
OK, but when I hear that in certain states you are not allowed (or soon you will not be allowed) to say "mother" and "father" in public places, that these words are going to be erased from handbooks at school, because you may offend homosexuals who, for their adopted children, are netiher mother nor father then I say that democracy and freedom have gone too far. Everyone should be allowed to pursue personal happiness but not at the cost of personal happiness of other people. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I don't disagree with what you're saying here (which I think is pretty amazing). However, which states are actually going to introduce such a ban? If this is really the case, then I'm surprised that I hadn't heard of it, though as I don't live in the US then I suppose there's no reason that I should have. Incidentally, I don't see why it would be necessary to single out homosexual adoptive parents here. I accept that people who are adopted often find themselves in a slightly more complicated situation than most of us (e.g. who should they view as their 'parents' — their adoptive parents or their biological parents, or both?), but I don't see why the sexual orientation of the adoptive parent makes any difference in this particular case. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I could not have said it better, Joanne. Some issues simply do not come under the purview of the Constitution at all, and they should be left that way, so that they can be hashed out by the people. The Constitution has its own job to do, and functions best when left to do that job, and not others. |
||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Why would that be creepy? What you call "cradle-to-the-grave care" is not Big Brother in action; it's the government giving you a hand when you ask for it.
Why would you want to live in Australia? Why not Canada?
Let me help you. It's simple, really, you have a pecker, right? Then you're a man!
Do many people actually move to another state for that reason?
That will never happen, though. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Well, I'm just being facetious, and I'm not really, really going to move unless it was an absolute emergency. (Especially since McCain won the South Carolina primary yesterday, and he and Giuliani are bitch-slapping the hell out of Romney in Florida now. ) But if such an emergency arose, I would move there for convenience. I have family in Australia, own property in Gold Coast City, it would be easier for me to get a job transfer, the taxes are slightly lower than in Canada, and the weather is agreeable (even though, for some inexplicable reason, those nutty Southern Hemispherites stubbornly insist on doing their seasons backwards. ) I don't know anyone in Canada, I'd be digging myself out of snow in the middle of May if I lived there, and my husband would have to take a tremendous pay cut if he worked there, so....no. No Canada for me, sorry.
Ever since same-sex marriage became legal in New Jersey, we have been seeing a steady influx of gay couples here, so yes, they do!
How depressing, Walker...  I'm more optimistic than you, though. Even though it's chaotic here at times, I think it's been going reasonably well...
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
As far as governments are concerned, in their eternal desire to classify us, yes. But gender identity is rather more complicated than a simple question of whether you have a penis or a vagina (or both, or neither). I'm not trangendered (though I arguably sort of was as a child), but if you said that to a transgendered person who had not transitioned yet, they would almost definitely disagree with you. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
I haven't heard of this, either, Benjamin. If such legislation has been proposed, I can't imagine how it isn't being challenged left, right and center, since it encroaches on First Amendment rights.
However, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my word for it.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
You're just guaranteed the right to PURSUE happiness -- not to catch it! [/i]
|
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Practically every non-international person I know is from out of state. And the top 3 main reasons they come out here is 1) to escape the miserable, cold weather, 2) to work in the entertainment industry, and 3) to escape their intolerant state government or culture. |
||||||||||||||||
| Travis |
Those are just the weak who can't take normal winter weather (as opposed to those who don't panic when an inch of snow comes down and who rationally regard 20 F as not being that cold). |
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Probably, but when you get up in the morning to go to work or school, wouldn't you rather just throw on a pair of jeans and t-shirt, hop in your car and go, than bundle up in your parka, scarf, and galoshes, shovel the walkway, scrape the ice off the windshield, and wait for your car to warm up an hour before leaving? If I had to do that every winter morning, I think I'd just stay in bed. |
||||||||||||||||
| Travis |
Geez... it's really not that bad - it's not like the northern contiguous US is up by the Arctic Circle or anything. Around here in the winter, you just put on your coat, which gets to be pretty automatic as things go, and you really do not need a scarf or boots under normal circumstances - hell, I normally just wear my tennies even after significant snowfalls... As for one's car, you normally warm it up for ten minutes or so maximum, and that's when it is very cold (think positive single digits F or below), not a whole friggin hour, which would just be a major waste of gas. As for scraping ice off one's car, that's only if it happened to snow a good bit on one's car while it is very warm; otherwise you really just have to brush the snow off, which really isn't that bad. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the race. This means I'll actually have to think about who to vote for in the primary. I had planned to vote for Kucinich in the primary, just to make a statement, then, in the election, vote for whichever person ends up being the democratic candidate (the frontrunners all seem too similar for me to worry about which one I'd prefer). Maybe I'll just save myself some time and not bother voting in the primary. | ||||||||||||||||
| Walker |
Own property, eh? Did I ever tell you what a lovely person I think you... right, husband. Damn it...
But one has to be reasonable and think of it in biological or medical terms, I think. My father is a man and my mother is a woman, which is very obvious. How one feels or chooses to act is a different matter. If a man who feels like woman trapped inside a man's body gets sick and ends up hospitalized, they won't be treating him (medically) like a woman, now will they?
Hehe, well said! |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
As for transsexual people, what I don't understand is why medicine inherently assumes that their mind is all right and this is their bodies which are "wrong" and need to be "cured". Why do they say this is healthy mind "trapped" in a wrong body, and not vice versa? |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well, it's not a matter of which is "right" and "which" is wrong, it's a matter of what is the best treatment for that problem. It is far easier to alter the body than the mind, especially if the things it takes to make the mind "fully" female or male really depend on chemical factors like hormones during fetal development that can't be reproduced in an adult brain. Granted, the surgical alterations that go into a sex-change operation aren't perfect solutions, either, but it seems to make these patients happier and more satisfied with the outcome than psychotherapy -- and getting the patient to an acceptable level of daily happiness and social adjustment is really the point of treatment here. | ||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Form what you said I understand that this is just a technical thing - altering the body is just much easier to perform.
And this is what I wanted to hear.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I think this demonstrates the distinction between sex (in most cases an obvious biological reality) and gender (one's self-conception as socially male or female). | ||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
It's also about the person's choice. Not all transgendered people actually have gender-reassignment surgery, and many receive hormones without actually having their genitalia modified. No-one would ever be required to have any such treatment if they didn't want to. Perhaps the fact that I'm gay means that my mind is 'wrong', I don't know. But as far as I'm concerned, that's completely irrelevant. This is the way I am, and this is the way I am going to live my life. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Well sure. Because you live your life through your mind. It's much harder to change that. The body is just meat. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
No, why should your mind be wrong? The fact that you are gay, i.e. cheerful and merry, is fine! We need optimistic people in our difficult times. I'm also gay, especially today despite the fact it's Monday! Perhaps tomorrow I will be cheerless, but who knows?
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
KSa — I'll just say that I didn't find that even remotely funny, although I think it was meant to be. | ||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Hmmm? I had rather a chuckle about KSa's remark, thought it was funny!
|
||||||||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
The race for the Democratic nomination is getting interesting now. It's clear, anyway, that it's between Obama and Clinton. | ||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Yeah...Queen Hillary wasn't expecting to have to actually fight for the nomination.  Let's just say that she's known to have a pathologically high sense of entitlement, in these parts.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Hmm... I still don't know who I'm rooting for. And where the hell has Giuliani been hiding?? | ||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
He messed up. He ignored the other states and put all his eggs in one basket (Florida). Tsk, tsk... he's out of the race, IMHO.
In this, though, Giuliani totally killed me. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
I'm sorry Benjamin, yes, it was meant to be funny and I didn't know you are so sensitive. More, I didn't know that telling someone they are "gay" meaning "full of or showing high-spirited merriment" can be offensive
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I'm not 'sensitive', and it wasn't 'offensive'. I just didn't find it funny when I first read it, because I thought you were trying to imply that you didn't really believe that being gay was valid by emphasising the original meaning of the word. But evidently not. | ||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
No, originally I was wondering if the word "gay" is still being used in the meaning of "merry", etc. In all dictionaries the meaning of "homosexual" is in the first place but it is followed by "merry", "cheerful", "bright" etc. I am pretty sure that it is not used in this sense anymore. I mean, if I said "I am gay" it would be always interpreted as "I am homosexual". Correct me if I'm wrong. |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
You are correct. However, the word gay has had other meanings in addition to merry/cheerful/bright/etc. for centuries. From about 17th century it was used to mean 'carefree' and 'uninhibited', often with sexual connotations. In the 19th century, the expression gay life was often used as a euphemism for prostitution and sometimes other sexual behaviour outside marriage. By the mid 20th century, straight was used to imply respectability, and gay had become well established as its antonym which referred to the perceived lifestyles of unmarried people. At the same time, the expression gay attire was used to refer to a perceived excessive showiness in dress style., which perhaps led to a more general association of the term with with effeminacy. I think the present meaning of gay has been dominant since about the 1960s, although it had been used to mean 'homosexual' before then. I once remember hearing something on the radio about a campaign organisation called Save Gay, which was trying to promote the usage of gay as a synonym for cheerful and merry. I can't find anything about it on the internet though. |
||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Well, it's official. Giuliani has dropped out of the race and has thrown his support to McCain. Edwards has also left the building, so who now will his supporters back, Obama or Hillary... ?? 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
He's at it again. Ralph Nader is an egotistical jerk, putting the cart miles before the horse as usual. | ||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I totally agree with Ralph Nader where he says that both Clinton and Obama are 'enthralled to the corporate powers'. I think it's fundamental to have a candidate like Nader in the US presidential election who is able to offer an alternative to the neo-liberal consensus supported by both the Republican and Democratic candidates. | ||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
But in our fundamentally flawed electoral system, there is no alternative. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the winner of this election is going to be either the Republican or the Democrat; the most that any citizen can hope to do is to help swing it one way or the other. Nader should be working for real progressive reform and grassroots political activism, not expecting to waltz in and magically win the presidency. | ||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
I think he'd be better in a Cabinet position (Homeland security? Just a thought...) Or as a Senator, where he can put his natural, uh, feistiness to good use bullying people into accepting his points of view, much like he did as Mayor of NYC.
Hillary, probably. Or else she'll hunt him down and castrate him. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
NADER? Nobody's paid attention to that jack-off in years! He's not even remotely an alternative to anything.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I can't believe how much press the US elections are getting in the BBC. Especially this early on -- the election isn't until November, and people are still jockeying for position within their own parties, not even against their ideological opponents. It can't be that exciting to foreigners! I mean, I took no interest in the French election, or in Tony Blair's passing -- if I didn't read the BBC, I would in fact have no knowledge of either of them.
Also, lots and lots of positions will be up for grabs during the next election, not just the Oval Office; a third of the Senate, all of the House, various state and local officials, plus bond initiatives, and (in the western states, at least) direct voting on propositions for laws (much less common in Eastern states, don't know why). The ballot they hand you in November will have pages to it! |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
You're right. I ought to get my eyes checked. I think I'll need a new prescription. 
|
||||||||||||||||