Muse - Uprising

Forced Voting

I have heard many times that voting is not really a right, but a privilege bestowed upon us by our good benefactors. They warn that you may lose the privilege to vote if you commit a crime, or are not a citizen, or any number of other reasons. They warn that if you are eligible to vote, you should do so, or else some day that privilege may be gone.

Well now some gauleiter at the Brookings Institute named William Galston wants to force this privilege down our throats. Vote, he says, or pay a fine! Well at least that's the way he wants it to be. He seems to think that the US should model it's voting system after Australia's, where eligible voters who don't exercise their voting "privilege" get fined. Incidentally, Australia has one of the highest "Mickey Mouse" vote rates in the world (A Mickey Mouse vote is where you make a nonsensical vote, like writing in the name Mickey Mouse).

I think that if the US were to enact compulsory voting, then it is only reasonable (both morally and logically) to also enact a rule that says that if less than 100% of eligible voters cast a ballot, then the results of that vote are null and void. The door should swing both ways.

Of course, that would not be an ideal solution. An ideal solution would be to eliminate all democratic mechanisms altogether and banish voting to the realm of tyrants and pitchfork mobs.

Let's take a look at how retarded and backwards the Brookings Institute's thinking is on the matter:

The Brookings Institution scholar is among those who are dismayed at the turnout in this country. Those in the wide middle of the spectrum are the ones who abstain from voting, and Galston thinks that's not good. Get more people in the process by making it easier to vote through things like liberalized absentee voting.

Dismayed at the turnout? Dismayed that not everyone agrees with your notions of mob rule? Dismayed that not everyone's beliefs match your own, especially if that belief is apathy? Shouldn't one's difference of opinion be respected, rather than overridden through forced participation?

What Galston is doing is "counting the hits and ignoring the misses." He is too blind to see that a non-vote is a rejection of the system. It is, in a way, a vote of no confidence, or of apathy, or of disengagement. The non-vote is, in reality, the most powerful "vote" in a democracy. But of course, the Brookings Institute is blinded by their democratic fanboyism. They cannot conceive that non-participation in democratic mechanisms could ever be legitimate, or ever have a meaningful message behind it, or even be the moral thing to do. Nothing could so effectively take away the power of one's voice than by forcing that person to cast a vote in a democracy. It is forcing one's consent to the system. More important than the candidate(s) to be voted on is whether or not one consents to the system at all. To paraphrase Spooner, you are no less a slave just because you get to vote for a new master every couple of years.

And if you want some really delicious irony, read this part where Galston, who is advocating forced democracy, argues against a specific instance of popular opposition to his idea:

But, as Robert pointed out, an ABC News poll indicated that 72 percent of Americans are opposed to compulsory voting. Isn't this a non-starter?

Galston conceded that it could be tough but added that perceptions change. Just look at the public's turnaround on "don't ask, don't tell," he said.

And if you didn't notice, Galston also implicitly conceded the mercurial and ever-shifting beliefs of the majority. Hey I'm for social maturation and evolution of ideas as much as the next guy, but given that the only constant of popular opinion is that it always changes, why should we be trying to force popular opinions into policy and law? What is moral today is immoral tomorrow, and vice-versa, all through popular dictate? No thanks.

By forcing everyone to vote, everyone will be forced to play the game; to consent to the overall system. Mandatory voting is a sure-fire way to maintain the status quo, preserve the current power structure, and eliminate any real chance of change whatsoever.

White Knight

A white knight counter-trolling a den of trolls:

How 4409 Handles a Census Worker

Bill Hicks Was Right

Drug addicts are beating the government's ass in the War on Drugs.

"Illegal" Immigrants

tpsisokayiguess has a great response to the retards who complain about "illegal immigration."

Terrorists Kidnap Man, Kill Dog

We have terrorism in the streets and homes of the USA. Watch the black clothed terrorists in this video break into a family home, murder the canine, and kidnap the peaceful man. You can hear the terror in the voices of the family members. You can see the robotic way in which the heavily armed terrorists complete their mission, blinded by a false ideology and an evil moral code.

Stealth Sterilization

Does this count as "single payer"?

WHEN her baby died soon after delivery, Gulbahor Zavidova, 28, a poor farmer’s wife, longed to be pregnant again. After months of trying she and her husband visited a doctor who told her she could never have another child because she had been sterilised.

The procedure had been performed immediately after she gave birth, by doctors who did not ask her consent. On learning she could not bear children, her husband left her.

“Not a day passes without me crying,” she said. “I was outraged when I found out what they had done. How could they do such a horrible thing without asking me?”

According to human rights groups, tens of thousands of young women like Zavidova have been sterilised without their consent in the authoritarian former Soviet state of Uzbekistan.

Uzbek sources say the measure was ordered by Islam Karimov, the president, who has ruled with an iron fist for 20 years. The policy is aimed at keeping down the country’s poor population — with 28m people, it is Central Asia’s most densely populated state.

Activists say mass sterilisation began in 2003, but was eased after two years following an outcry. It is said to have restarted in February this year, when the health ministry ordered doctors to recommend sterilisation as an “effective contraceptive”. Critics claim every doctor was told to persuade “at least two women” a month to have the procedure. Doctors who failed faced reprisals and fines.

“We estimate that since February, about 5,000 women have been sterilised without consent,” said a local human rights campaigner who fears detention if she is named.

In many cases, doctors opt for delivery by caesarean section and then perform a sterilisation without telling the woman. Widespread rumours of the practice have resulted in women opting for home births to avoid the risk.

Doctors visited Hidojat Muminova, a 26-year-old cotton picker, at home several months ago. They told the mother of two she should visit a local hospital for a check-up, at which she was diagnosed with a potentially fatal cyst in her fallopian tubes.

“They scared me into believing I needed an urgent operation,” she said. “I was surprised as I’d never had any pain but I was worried and agreed to the surgery. When it was over they told me they’d performed a sterilisation. I could not stop crying. They tricked me and treated me like an animal.”

Another victim, Mahmuda Usupova, 30, said doctors had sterilised her after she gave birth to her third child by caesarean several months ago. She learnt she could no longer have children during a visit to her gynaecologist.

Uzbek authorities deny that sterilisations are carried out without consent, but a report by the United Nations Committee Against Torture reported a “large number” of cases three years ago. According to the UN, Uzbekistan’s fertility rate has fallen from 4.4 babies per woman to 2.5 since Karimov came to power.

Under the 72-year-old Karimov, Uzbekistan has become highly repressive. Opponents have been jailed, tortured and killed. Two critics of the regime, who were accused of being Islamic militants, were scalded to death after boiling water was poured over them.

Hundreds of civilians died when the police and army fired indiscriminately into a large crowd of protesters in Andijan in 2005. The Sunday Times has been denied entry to Uzbekistan ever since because its coverage is considered “unfriendly”.

The sterilisation programme has been relaunched despite efforts by Karimov’s two daughters to improve the lives of Uzbek women and children. Lola, 31, the president’s younger daughter, is a Unesco ambassador and head of a children’s charity.

Her sister Gulnara, 38, who was recently appointed ambassador to Spain, supports a number of charities. Known as “the princess of Uzbeks”, she is a Harvard graduate, martial arts expert and jewellery designer.

Under the name GooGoosha — apparently her father’s pet name for her — she has released pop videos. Her parties in Moscow, where she lived until recently, attracted members of the elite.

The women’s health days advertised on her website provide free access to medical specialists from Israel for women suffering “diseases related to reproductive functions”.

The Uzbek embassy in Moscow insisted that all sterilisations were carried out at the patient’s request and after the woman’s husband had been told of the consequences.