Vermont town votes to indict King George as War Criminal

[rahmota]

Look at this news article about a town in Vermont who have voted, albeit symbolicly as there is no legal power behind it, to decalre King George and Prince Dick as having committed crimes against the Constitution of the United States.

I am glad to see there are still decent, upstanding honorable americans who see this criminal for the evil man he really is.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...RgScwD8UG445O1

Here is a link to the town's website. Where they have been getting death threats, insults, and generally insulted as beign unamerican when all theya re doing is trying to fight against the biggest enabler of Terrorists since Ronald Reagon. Try and be more positive and supporting of true americans.
http://www.brattleboro.org

[Boozy]

(Rahmota: The link's not working for me...I had to Google it.)

The United States is likely guilty of the following breaches of the Geneva Convention:

- Torture or inhumane treatment (Abu Ghraib, possibly Guantanamo Bay)
- Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial (Guantanamo Bay)
- Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer (again, Gitmo)

(It is no crime to invade a sovereign nation under false pretenses of self-defense, although perhaps it should be.)

But here's what I find really interesting about this story: The United States is a democracy. President Bush was legitimately elected (once, anyways ).

The good people of Vermont do not have clean hands in this either, no matter how much they'd like to distance themselves. By indicting the President, are they not indicting themselves?

[AFPheonix]

Well, yes and no. If we elected by popular vote, then that would be a resounding yes.
Since we vote by the system we have through the electoral college, we don't necessarily get to vote ourselves for our president.
For example, see the 2000 election (and one other historical one, I can't recall which) where the losing candidate actually won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college.
Also, I believe Vermont typically votes democrat overall, so their votes most likely went to Gore and Kerry the last 2 times. I'm too lazy to go back and find the state-by-state results for 2000 and 2004.

But yes, I am absolutely mortified that at least half of the people in this country thought he'd be a better choice than the two decent, distinguished Senators/former VP that the democrats offered up the last two times.

[Boozy]

Thanks for the clarification, AFP. I forgot about the electoral college system, and how messed up all that is.

Quite a predicament you have down there, my friends. Should any of you feel like moving north, I offer up my couch.

[Pedersen]

Here's an amended link to click.

[rahmota]

Boozy: I see what i did wrong. ihad an extra http:// in there they should work now for everyone. At least they worked when I clicked on them this time. I forgot to do that earlier. Sorry.

Oh and yeah your analysis of the Geneva Violations is probably accurate. At least AFAIK. One of the reasons they where included in the movement to impeach King George raied by Kunich. This link is to the Wikipedia article but it should be helpful at the least.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush and this time i made sure not to have the double https in it.

And yeah the electorial college is rather messed up. It was supposed to be a way of makign sure all the states counted about the same but its turned into a battle where only a few key states are important to the candidates and the rest of them get shafted. Critics of the plan to go with popular election says that it would be too hard for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote and that by goign with the popular vote it would give third parties too much of a chance of winning. Basically they like having only two parties coming to the table and dont want to share their toys. Also the critics of popular elections like to say that it prevents the tyranny of the masses by not allowing a president that is too popular and charismatic to win the election. Sort of the way Hitler got into power by charming everyone and then shedding his snakeskin.

AFP: The elections you're talking about are the 1876, 1888 & 2000 elections. And in 2000 and 2004 Vermont went blue.

[AFPheonix]

And yeah the electorial college is rather messed up. It was supposed to be a way of makign sure all the states counted about the same but its turned into a battle where only a few key states are important to the candidates and the rest of them get shafted.

I think you're thinking of the current primaries going on. Allotting slots in the electoral college actually gives the smaller, less populous states a chance to put their oar in, more so than a popular vote would. If we had a popular vote, I suspect candidates wouldn't even bother visiting your state or mine, or even go out in the country at all. They could hit the major urban centers and be good. This at least gives voice to the people in rural areas.

But yes, the current primary system for the 2 major parties is pretty screwed up and I suspect the fiasco with Michigan and Florida will force some change in the way they're handled, at least as far as the Democrats are concerned. There's really no reason why NH and Iowa go first other than historical precedent.

I almost wonder if the Republican party is headed for a split down the line. It's almost scary how many votes Ron Paul's picked up, but I suspect it's due to the fact that there's many fiscally conservative/social liberals who are alienated by their party so bad that he's more their style, even with his laundry list of glaring faults.
I would support a few more parties, but on the other hand the nice thing about a 2 party system is that we actually can get shit done. Countries like Italy with a bazillion small parties have a nearly paralyzed legislative branch simply because it's so hard to build coalitions and come to consensus to get anything done.

[Amethyst Hunter]

a town in Vermont who have voted, albeit symbolicly as there is no legal power behind it, to decalre King George and Prince Dick as having committed crimes against the Constitution of the United States.

I am glad to see there are still decent, upstanding honorable americans who see these criminals for the evil men they really are.

Fixed your post, Rahmota.

Go Vermont! *applauds*

[Seshat]

I thought you meant George V or George VI.

Critics of the plan to go with popular election says that it would be too hard for a candidate to win a majority of the popular vote

That's easily fixed: preferential voting. Here's the Australian Electoral Commission's pages on:
how to make a preferential vote
and
how preferential votes are counted.

and that by goign with the popular vote it would give third parties too much of a chance of winning. Basically they like having only two parties coming to the table and dont want to share their toys.

Send them back to kindergarten.

Also the critics of popular elections like to say that it prevents the tyranny of the masses by not allowing a president that is too popular and charismatic to win the election.

That's easily fixed: they can go look at world democracies and study how their democracies work. Then they can pick the method that gets unpopular people elected - oh, wait. They already have that.

[Pedersen]

I would support a few more parties, but on the other hand the nice thing about a 2 party system is that we actually can get shit done. Countries like Italy with a bazillion small parties have a nearly paralyzed legislative branch simply because it's so hard to build coalitions and come to consensus to get anything done.

Hmm, all things considered, I'd like to have a bazillion parties, so that Congress could/would do less shit. Honestly, all they seem to do is pass new laws to make life more difficult for the average citizen. Take more money, make more bureaucracy, generate more revenue through more fees so that the typical person has to spend more just to do the same thing he did last year.

If all it takes is getting a bazillion parties into Congress, then please tell me how I can help make that happen?

[AFPheonix]

Do you remember when the federal government pretty much had to shut down under the Clinton administration because they couldn't get a budget passed? Remember how shitty that was?
Hell, I remember, and I was in grade school or maybe Junior High at the time.

[Pedersen]

Yeah, I do. Funny thing, though, I don't recall it being that shitty for the average person. The people who couldn't get paid, for them it sucked.

For the rest of the country? Not so much. Not so far as I remember. Hospitals stayed open. Businesses stayed open. Banks functioned. Police, fire, they were up. Airlines still seemed to work, too. In fact, except for shutting down a great heaving bureaucracy, and hurting the people who needed it for a paycheck, I really don't recall it sucking.

Worst part is that I was only partly kidding before about having a bazillion parties. After this, I'm finding myself more in favor of it.

[rahmota]

AFp:

I think you're thinking of the current primaries going on.

Thats distinctly possible. trying to recall my history/polsci classes while trying to keep track of the way things have been perverted by the recent years gets things a bit scrambled.

Do you remember when the federal government pretty much had to shut down under the Clinton administration because they couldn't get a budget passed? Remember how shitty that was?

No actually I dont. For me life pretty much went on as usual. No difference. For the most part in my personal life the government could go away and it would have minimal effect on my personal life. then again I'm one of those "nutjobs" (Or so I've been called for not wanting to suckle off the govt teat) who wants to try and be self-sufficeint and capable of taking care of myself and my family in the old country way too so eh. Maybe it was a lot worse in the city or if peopel had to depend on government services. But my county takes care of itself, I take care of myself. It was a non-event to us. And to be perfectly honest I would rather see the government shut down because they ran out of money and wanted to keep the budget balanced than to continue with the King George deficit spending out of control attitude they have now.

Amethyst: Oh yeah they are two seperate people arnt they. Kinda hard to tell sometimes......

Seshat:[QUOTE]That's easily fixed: preferential voting. [/QUOTE] Interesting. Don't know how that would fly here stateside.

I thought you meant George V or George VI.

hehehe nope sorry. I meant our own home grown egotistical appointed by fiat unelected King George W Bush.

Send them back to kindergarten.

Oh that would be wonderful sometimes.

That's easily fixed: they can go look at world democracies and study how their democracies work.

Sad thign is you tell some americans there are OTHER democracies in the world and they go "Oh Really?" In shock and surprise. I'm not sure what they where thinking other than maybe everyone else was some sort of pagan tribal collectives hunched aroud the campfire waiting for the great enlightnment of the Glorious American Empire to come and Civilize them with Pax Americana.
(Does my bitterness seem to be showing through?")

Pederson:

Worst part is that I was only partly kidding before about having a bazillion parties. After this, I'm finding myself more in favor of it.

I'm startign to get in favor of doing something. Same batshit different bat day is getting rather old. If it means a bit more stgnation and nothign getting done (along with a few fistfights in parliament as I've seen on CNN) I'll go for it. Might be intersting to see if some of the congressman can still swing a punch or two. At least it'll make C-Span somethign other than the anesthesia channel.

[Seshat]

<re preferential voting>
Interesting. Don't know how that would fly here stateside.

It's not difficult to do - the average Australian handles it easily. We only have a small percentage of uncountable votes - and some of those are intentionally uncountable. People who've written 'All politicians suck' on their ballots, and the like.

I doubt the average American is more stupid or less educated than the average Australian, so the populace would be able to handle preferential voting.

The major parties wouldn't like it, though: preferential voting means that people can vote for minor parties or unaffiliated candidates without 'wasting' their vote. If their preferred candidate isn't in the 'top two', their second preference is counted. If the second preference also isn't, their third - and so on until someone has a clear majority.

In a 'first past the post' system like you Americans have, if a person votes for a minor party and their candidate isn't in the 'top two', their vote is effectively lost - wasted.

The major parties like the first-past-the-post system, because it keeps voters from taking a chance on a minor party.

Sad thign is you tell some americans there are OTHER democracies in the world and they go "Oh Really?" In shock and surprise. I'm not sure what they where thinking other than maybe everyone else was some sort of pagan tribal collectives hunched aroud the campfire waiting for the great enlightnment of the Glorious American Empire to come and Civilize them with Pax Americana.
(Does my bitterness seem to be showing through?")

Believe me, I'm just as bitter about it.

Australia came close to being in a war with Indonesia over East Timor, about a decade ago. We're part of an alliance with the US. We've participated in wars that aren't our business, to honour the agreement.
Did the US show any signs of caring about us? Did the average US citizen even hear about it? Did even US citizens in daily contact with Australians find anything about it in the US news media? Do you need me to tell you the answers?

When I was in the States, I could tell people that we had kangaroo-drawn carriages travelling the streets of Melbourne, and as long as I kept a straight face, people would believe me. I could tell all sorts of wild tales about how rural, rustic and backwards we were. People were willing to believe we were all Crocodile Dundee meets Steve Irwin with a dash of Mad Max.

In reality, there's not much difference in the day-to-day lives of an urban American and an urban Australian. (My experience of urban Americans is primarily based on New York (state), New Jersey, and Indiana. I am aware that locale matters more in the States than in Australia.)

We walk a lot more, spend more time and effort in our gardens, recycle more, and are more likely to take measures like using cloth bags. We tend to have fewer things, though the middle class is moving towards American 'thing-ness'.

The biggest differences are in the emotional culture. Americans tend to be more fervent about everything than we do. We tend towards the laid-back, even laconic, even about things that matter to us.

[Boozy]

When I was in the States, I could tell people that we had kangaroo-drawn carriages travelling the streets of Melbourne, and as long as I kept a straight face, people would believe me. I could tell all sorts of wild tales about how rural, rustic and backwards we were. People were willing to believe we were all Crocodile Dundee meets Steve Irwin with a dash of Mad Max.

At risk of veering too far off topic, I have to address this. This kind of thing really bugs me.

Please excuse the length.

Years ago, the CBC did a show with our (lame) Canadian version of Jon Stewart, Rick Mercer. It was called "Talking to Americans". The entire point of the show was to get Americans to say stupid things about Canada so we could laugh at them.

It started out innocently enough. Mercer started by getting high-ranking US politicians to congratulate our Prime Minister on some random achievement. The trick was getting them to congratulate "Prime Minister Poutine" instead of Prime Minister Chretien. (For those who don't know, poutine is a regional dish involving french fries and cheese curds.)

This I was okay with. US Senators should damned well know the name of the Prime Minister of Canada - their largest neighbour and largest trading partner.

But it quickly regressed into getting average Americans to say things on camera like, "Congratulations on preserving your national igloo!"

This pissed me off. First of all, if you've never been to a country, how would you know what its like? How many Americans can we really expect to sit down and do research into our countries?

And we call them self-centered.

Secondly: The concept of a national igloo is ridiculous, but people and nations do ridiculous things. How can a man and his family living in Arkansas be expected to laugh it off and say, "Oh, you're lying. How stupid is that?" If it turned out to be true, the poor bastards would really have some Canadians jumping down their throats.

The show disintegrated quickly into a bunch of Canadian brats making fun of some very friendly Americans, all of whom took time out of their day to talk about Canada with our visiting reporters. I felt ashamed of my country, frankly.

Which brings me to kangaroo-drawn carriages in the streets of Melbourne. If you are a convincing enough liar, you could probably have made a lot of people believe you. Its completely absurd, but they'd obviously defer to the Australian sitting in front of them.

I know you were probably joking. I just hope that you set the record straight before leaving. As a visitor to America, you had a wonderful opportunity to truly educate those you met.

When I go south, I always make an effort to be extra kind and understanding. I am an ambassador of my country, and leaving a good impression is the first step to changing American minds about the outside world.