Conference turris::womannotes-v2

	[moved by moderator]

QUARK::LIONEL "Ad Astra"                             11 lines  22-SEP-1988 16:46
                 -< Not voting is the worst thing you can do >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: .last
    
>   Unfortunately, the choices I have in the 1988 US presidential election
>   is to vote for Mike or to not vote at all.

    Not voting at all is not making a choice - it's letting others
    choose for you.  If you can't find anyone you want to vote FOR,
    find someone to vote AGAINST.  But VOTE!  Otherwise, you will
    have no right to complain about the government you get.
    
    				Steve

    You can always write in your own name, or whatever.. NONE OF THE
    ABOVE is a good choice.
    
    I wrote my name when Carter, and Ford? ran, I could not chose one
    over the other.
    
    Dave

    re: .1
    
    Not to worry, Steve, I will be voting.  I was just illustrating
    my limited options.
    
    am
    
    

    Re: .3
    
    Writing in your own name, or that of Mickey Mouse or Pat Paulsen,
    is the same as not voting.  (Pat's not running this time, by the
    way...)  By doing so, you are effectively disenfranchising yourself.
    
    Re: .4
    
    Glad to hear it, Ann.  I am not 100% satisified with either of the
    major candidates, but I do have a clear preference.  If there was
    ever a situation where I thought that a candidate agreed with my
    own position on every single issue, I'd start to be worried...
    
    Re: .2
    
    I agree a "Human Rights Amendment" sounds like a good idea, but
    if it is ambiguously and generically worded, then it will have
    no effect.  Note that there are some classes of people (convicted
    criminals in prison, for example), who definitely have restricted
    rights.  Is this good or bad?
    
    Sadly, if we start to try instead to list all the types of
    discrimination to be outlawed, someone will undoubtedly come up
    with a new one.  We already have sex, race, color, creed, national
    origin and sexual orientation, the latter two being fairly recent
    additions to the standard lists.  But I think being specific is
    better than not saying anything at all.
    
    					Steve

The problem is that if we (people via government) aren't specific as to 
who cannot be discriminated against, then there are many who will 
discriminate first, then wait to see if they are brought to court about
it and whether they will win or lose.  There are still many who discriminate,
but knowing that you will lose if brought to court is a deterrent.

           Carol

    Re .*:
    
    As I have already discussed in the "Why the ERA" topic, I believe
    that strict interpretation of the Constitution would be the best
    possible protection of EVERYONE's rights. "Strict interpretation"
    means that the Constitution grants the government certain specific
    powers, anything not specifically allowed is forbidden. Today, it
    seems, the opposite is true; anything not specifically forbidden
    is allowable. This leads us to exactly the problem Alexander Hamilton
    foresaw when he argued against a Bill of Rights in the Federalist
    Papers:
    
    	I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense
    	and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only
    	unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be
    	dangerous.  They would contain various exceptions to powers
    	which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford
    	a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.  For why
    	declare that things shall not be done which there is no power
    	to do?  Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty
    	of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given
    	by which restrictions may be imposed?  I will not contend that
    	such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is
    	evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a
    	plausible pretence for claiming that power.  They might urge
    	with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not
    	to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the
    	abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the
    	provision against restraining the liberty of the press
    	afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe
    	proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested
    	in the national government.  They may serve as a specimen of
    	the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine
    	of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious
    	zeal for bills of rights."
                                             -- Publius

    re .5:
    
    BTW, Pat Paulsen announced his candidacy on the "Smother's Brothers
    20th Anniversary Special" a few months back.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

Associated Press Wed 13-MAY-1987 15:04                            Pat Paulsen

enrX13-MAY-8715

   Paulsen Jogs Into N.H. Presidential Primary Race
LaserPhoto 
wjmdewst
                            By WENDY MITMAN
                        Associated Press Writer
   CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - There were few straight answers at Pat
Paulsen's news conference Wednesday but then again, few people
expected any from the comic presidential candidate.
   On the state of the nation: ``Due to misunderstanding of the
future, we are bound to make many more mistakes. Therefore when I'm
president I will lead this country into the past ... by working
backwards I feel we are bound to make less mistakes because we have
already made them.''
   On the economy, same theory: ``Our budget keeps getting higher
as we work for the future, but if we work towards the past the
budget will go down and back to where it first started.''
   On foreign policy: ``Having a comic in the White House will
assure stability in foreign relations. The world will continue to
respond to foreign initiatives by saying, `You must be joking.' ''
   On his choice of party: ``I'm running as a Democrat. I ran as a
Republican before but I like to mix it up.''
   On his ability to lead: ``I'm a comedian by profession but I
could probably do just as good a job as, well, for instance, you
people voted for (Richard) Nixon.''
   On his role as president: ``The best thing I can do for my
country and the world ...is to mind my own business and not
interfere with people and creatures and not try to make them
miserable.''
   On gun control: ``We have to have guns. We're a gun society. You
never know when you're walking down the street here and you'll spot
a moose.''
   Paulsen, dressed in a sweatsuit and sneakers, jogged to the
podium in front of the Statehouse. He was flanked by two
blue-suited men dressed as Secret Service agents who tried not to
crack smiles when Paulsen called them ``gangsters.''
   Paulsen, who gained fame on the old ``Smothers Brothers''
television show and ran for president in 1972, said he cannot
officially declare his candidacy because television stations are
required to give each candidate equal time and he'd have to quit
his job.
   Nevertheless, several people have begun a campaign to draft him.
   ``I want these people to cease and desist. I have not asked for
their support. This adoration has got to stop,'' Paulsen said.
   Paulsen, a California resident, said he's running because people
keep asking him to, and besides - as his slogan explains - ``He's
gotta sleep somewhere.''

    
    I wonder if he is looking for a running mate?  I have a sweat-suit,
    and Nikes, not to mention the irreverency needed for this position...
    
    
    

       And I love his other statement...

       "I've upped my standards, now up yours"

    While we're on the Pat Paulsen sidetrack, an oldie from his
    '68 campaign :
    
    "No-one should be discriminated against because of the shape 
    of their skin"

    re: .5 (Yes, I know that was way back there...)
    
    "... sex, race, color, creed, national origin and sexual orientation.."
    
    Add: age and handicap.
    
    Bill