Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Miami Holiday


Macsen

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What fingerprints? I go to the Western states all the time, I don't get fingerprinted at customs. All I need is my trusty passport.

 

 

Newssource Heise.de

30.Sept, 2004 German citicens and citicens of 26 other countries from so called Visa-Waiver-Countries have their fingerprints get registered when entering US territory. The prints are stored in a permanent database.

 

17.July 2005 Disney World uses fingerprint scanning to identify visitors.

 

These are the two articles that I could find fast. Of course, as I said, the fingerprints are only a symptom and not neccesarily everything that caused my resentiment.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments about elections in the U.S...

 

I do not agree with the argument that that U.S. voters are "responsible" for their elected officials or that those who did not vote against Bush and his filth "allowed" him to win. Here are a few reasons why:

 

 

Such arguments assume that those being held responsible for these actions had access to clear, accurate information about the people running for office. this is not even remotely the case. ++HUndreds of millions of dollars++ are spent spinning stories and myths about candidates, armies of professional PR flacks, image consultants, professional liars, lawyers, focus group researchers, necromancers, celebrities, and common folk are hired or borrowed to spin the image of these people in the publics mind. Would you hold an individual responsible for doing something wrong when he or she has been lied to repeatedly about that action? The same standard has to be applied here.

 

The average American is not extremely literate by the standards of other industrialized nations. they tend to get their news from one or two corporate owned outlets and the majority have no inkling or inclination to trust alternative sources. Remember the vast majority of households in the u.s. have no internet access at home too. So where do they go for news? The local newspaper, generally parochial in outlook and reaction ary or the boob tube, to sum up, Fox News or MSNBC. These are organs of the status quo, you will not find challenging, objective information here.

 

As to the notion that a not voting for Bush means you helped him win, consider that the 2000 election was stolen and the 2004 election had craploads of suspicious problems plauging it. I did not vote for Bush, nor did I vote for the other pro-war candidate, Kerry. Oh, thats right, he changed his pro-war stance after finding out how unpopular the war was. Now thats backbone! I used my political energies that year to demonstrate time and again the bankruptcy of our political process, with its Good Cop/Bad Cop split between Dems and Reps, its incredibly high $$$ demands to runa campaign, its bonds to the corporate world. I successfully convinced one person, my fiancee, that voting is an empty act. Forward the Revolution! I dont think ALL voting or elections are bogus, but the presidential race is more the stuff of beauty contests rather than the will of the people incarnate. BTW did you all know about the Talk Show Host effect, political scientists at Princeton have determined that many people assume the opinions and positions about politics that their favorite talk show hosts have. Yes, thats right, their voting is effected by what David Letterman or Leno told them to laugh at the night before. Ahhh, the rational mind at work!

 

Most folks saw the logic of my arguments but being Americans could not just "not do anything" as several of them put it, the concept of productive inaction being foreign to our culture. So they went and voted, and thats fine too, either course of action would have changed nothing of major importance. I was more interested in winning hearts and minds to my point of view. Now its true that Kerrys regime may have been a little bit prettier on the surface than the Bushies, but history has shown that democrats are every bit as bloodthirsty and ruthless as leaders as Repubs. Remember, it was Dems that got us into Vietnam (and who along with Rep. Richard Nixon kept us there for 10 years!!!) and Bosnia and it was Clinton that continued the murderous bombing and sanctions against the Iraqis AFTER the Gulf War I that claimed around a millino Iraqi lives. So my question was then and still is Why should I partake in a farcifal political event, a religious ritual, when I can engage in real politics by discussing the truth and lies of the system itself? Voting in a world dominated by wealth and power is not a tool of political freedom, its a tool of political control to keep the Beast lumbering on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where you are coming from Max, but I don't agree with your stance of not voting.

 

When you don't vote, politicians don't see it as a failure of the electoral system, or as preople withdrawing from disillusionment, they see it as a case of people either not caring what politicians do, or, if the incumbent wins, as tacit approval of their policies and performance. By not voting, you are effectively endorsing the government of the day (as far as the government of the day is concerned).

 

It is better to actively vote for a minor candidate who has no hope of winning, because it makes it clear to politicians that there is a group of people who are not happy with the way the major parties operate, and they are more likely to think about what matters to these voters and adjust their policies to win them back. If at each election the vote for minor parties gets bigger and bigger, the major parties will be forced to change their policies to get those voters back. The difference in result might be very small, and you might think it is pointless and farcical (and it is), but doing something is better than resigning yoursslef to your fate. Better to make an effort and fail than to sit on your arse and say I told you so when the pollies keep playing the same old game. You have nothing to lose by voting for someone who is neither Republican nor Democrat, but you have a slight chance of gaining something, even if it is just a small shift in policy.

 

Here in Austrlaia, some of the state legislatures and the Federal Senate have a voting system (Hare-Clark) that represents the electorate more accurately through preferential voting. It results in a multitude of parties and independent candidates being represented, and the major parties usually need to form coallitions and talk with the minor parties to get legislation through. Even in the House of Representatives, more and more independent candidates are being elected each time, and politicians are stupid if they don't take the hint.

 

You Americans really need to get a third or fourth political party going, or better still, just vote for independents. Though I will agree, if you only have the option of voting democrat or republic (no independent or other party candidates standing for election), then you might as well not vote, as the two parties are hardly any different in practise.

 

You had better do something, because the US economy and international reputation are going down the toilet fast with Dubya at the helm.

 

EDIT: After some thought, it occurs to me that you would be better off picking a person at random to be president, than with your current system. You couldn't possibly end up with a bigger retard than Bush, and the chance that they would be able to better represent the American people is higher, as most Americans are not tremendously rich, hence more canditates in the "average" pool. Maybe they could also sit an exam, to see if they have basic literacy skills at least (still an improvement on Bush).

 

An election process based on random chance is by far the most fair system, but it has the drawback of including lunatics and imbeciles as potential candidates, so there might need to be a few more restrictions...

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I got fined once because I couldn't make it to a polling booth (I had gone bush, and the car had decided not to function). I then got fined again for paying it late. D'oh! There is a two year jail sentence (I think) as a maximum penalty if you consistently don't vote here in Australia. If you are in prison, you are not allowed to vote. Go figure.

 

What most Aussies do if they don't care who wins, is a donkey vote - they basically write something on the ballot, or nothing at all, that invalidates the vote. Never done it myself, because I will always vote for independents on principle first, because I want to see political parties abolished, so I make sure my little voice is counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such arguments assume that those being held responsible for these actions had access to clear, accurate information about the people running for office.

 

That certainly is a problem, but then again, there should be free sources of information as well. I doubt that every news outlet is controlled by the goverment. Of course if you only go for newspapers that are on the level of yellow-press then it's still their responsibillity. The goverment is for the people not the other way around, as it is nowadays. Not only in the US, mind you.

 

this is not even remotely the case. ++HUndreds of millions of dollars++ are spent spinning stories and myths about candidates, armies of professional PR flacks, image consultants, professional liars, lawyers, focus group researchers, necromancers, celebrities, and common folk are hired or borrowed to spin the image of these people in the publics mind. Would you hold an individual responsible for doing something wrong when he or she has been lied to repeatedly about that action? The same standard has to be applied here.

 

All this big apparatus is not part of the population? This is where it starts. Why do people prefer to spin stories then tell the truth? Because you can make money with it.

 

The average American is not extremely literate by the standards of other industrialized nations.

 

Why don't people try to get educated? This is another thing where it starts.

 

Oh, thats right, he changed his pro-war stance after finding out how unpopular the war was. Now thats backbone!

 

At least it shows that politicians have to listen to what is popular. That's the point.

 

I dont think ALL voting or elections are bogus, but the presidential race is more the stuff of beauty contests rather than the will of the people incarnate.

 

I think this is one of the big problems of the US. Everything is turned into a fun fair. From what I see here in the news, the big part of the elections seem not about politics, it seems to be about having pat, making parties, celebrity and such stuff. The voting is turned into a celebration like a pop concert or the super bowl. And this is not only so with the voting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression, that, to catch the attention of the mass, you always have to do such pop concert acts, otherwise nobody really would acknowledge it. Yeah, you can demonstrate as much as you want, and if you are lucky you get a few minutes of press coverage, maybe even 20 seconds in the TV news, between the ads for cerials and sneakers.

 

The attention span seems to be that of a small child, and of course the whole system support this to not annoy the people and *god be against it* loose money.

 

BTW did you all know about the Talk Show Host effect, political scientists at Princeton have determined that many people assume the opinions and positions about politics that their favorite talk show hosts have.

 

That's exactly what I mean above.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you don't vote, politicians don't see it as a failure of the electoral system, or as preople withdrawing from disillusionment, they see it as a case of people either not caring what politicians do, or, if the incumbent wins, as tacit approval of their policies and performance.

 

Exactly. This is not very much differnt here. A party that had a total of about 35% celebrated to be the stronges and most liked party. The obvious truth is, that it still means that 65% did NOT vote them, and this only includes the number of actual voters. The nunber who did NOT vote this party is much higher of course.

 

By not voting, you are effectively endorsing the government of the day (as far as the government of the day is concerned).

 

Right. If somebody doesn't disagree with my opinion, then it means he agrees, for all it's worth, as long as he doesn't make it clear that he doesn't agree.

 

It is better to actively vote for a minor candidate who has no hope of winning, because it makes it clear to politicians that there is a group of people who are not happy with the way the major parties operate, and they are more likely to think about what matters to these voters and adjust their policies to win them back.

 

That's also my strategy. Only problem is that it could backfire, theoretically. :)

 

I think an enforced vote has still advantages (like the Aussies do), then allowing people not to vote. I guess that many people just don't go to the booth because they can't be bothered to move their ass, but once they are there, they would still cast a valid vote. I doubt that the number of invalid votes would be as big as the number of non-voters.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an enforced vote has still advantages (like the Aussies do), then allowing people not to vote.

 

I am told that the compulsory voting in AU was introduced in order to prevent intimidation of workers by the factory owners, who would stand around the polling booths and instantly fire any of their workers who turned up to vote (because obviously the voters were voting for the pro-labour parties). Solution: everybody has to vote.

 

As a solution I don't like it though, because I think everybody has a natural right NOT to do something, which should only be infringed when absolutely necessary (like paying taxes). It's like these traffic laws they have in some European countries where you have to stop and help somebody who has broken down - what if you are a lone woman travelling at night with no spare tires or mobile phone, you are still supposed to endanger yourself by stopping to help a complete stranger at the side of the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That particular law is not really enforcing that you have to stop. You also fullfill your obligation to help if you drive on to the next police station and tell them about it. This example of yours is usually specfically mentioned in drivers school when you make your license. :)

 

Still I think that voting is an important enough act, that it should be ensured. If they can decide about such important stuff as what kind of T-shirt you are allowed when working on a construction site, or that computer games must be zensored, then they can just as well spend their time with something more usefull which would help everybody, instead of just a few powerhungry guys.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That particular law is not really enforcing that you have to stop. You also fullfill your obligation to help if you drive on to the next police station and tell them about it. This example of yours is usually specfically mentioned in drivers school when you make your license. :)

 

Oh right, that makes more sense. It would be pretty stupid if the law forced people to endanger their own lives in order to help others.

 

Still I think that voting is an important enough act, that it should be ensured. If they can decide abuot such important stuff as what kind of T-shirt you are allowed when working on a construction site, or that computer games must be zensored, then they can jsut as well sopend their time with something more usefull which would help everybody, instead of just a few powerhungry gues.

 

There are certainly good reasons why voting should be encouraged - perhaps if they improved the accessibility so that you could vote online or by telephone it could be made mandatory, as long as they avoid ridiculous situations such as obscurus' example of being fined for having your car break down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could have probably argued the away the fine, but I procrastinated....

 

Rights come with responsibilities. If you want a say in how you are governed, you have a responsibility to at least vote, if nothing else. If you don't vote, you have no right at all to complain about which government is elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights come with responsibilities. If you want a say in how you are governed, you have a responsibility to at least vote, if nothing else. If you don't vote, you have no right at all to complain about which government is elected.

 

Quoted for truth. I can't understand how some members of this mod can get so het up about small game details yet not even bother to vote on who runs their country. Get angry about the big things not the little ones. ;)

 

As a journalist I am, of course, in a perpetual state of outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't vote, you have no right at all to complain about which government is elected.

 

That's like saying you have no right to complain about the temperature of the lake if you didn't put a drop of water in it first.

 

A single vote is not going to change the outcome of any election, so there's nothing "noble" about going through the motions. If you live in a country with proportional representation, then perhaps there's a purpose, but otherwise, a single vote is a waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't vote, you have no right at all to complain about which government is elected.

 

No, if you are a citizen of a country, you have the right to complain about the government.

 

In my country, every single time I've voted for a losing party. If I didn't vote, same result. Just like Springheel said, unless the country has proportional representation, then there's a purpose, but otherwise, a single vote is a waste. Currently my votes never existed.

Loose BOWELS are the first sign of THE CHOLERA MORBUS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of spurious rubbish. That is a terrible analogy. A lake exists with or without your intervention. A better analogy would be a pool - you have no right to complain about your pool having algae if you didn't bother to chlorinate it first.

 

Of course a single vote has an effect. By your logic, all voting is a waste of time, as all votes cast are single votes. Elections often come down to a handful of votes, sometimes the last vote counted will be the one that decides an election. All votes count, that is the whole point of democracy.

 

Even if your candidate is not elected, the candidate who is elected will be very careful to see how close his or her competitors came to winning, and they will pay attention to what is important to the electorate as a whole (barring loonies and extremists). They want to be re-elected, and if even a small percentage of voters vote for a candidate who champions a particular issue for example, that politician will be more mindful of those voters, and will likely try to shift their policies to accomidate voters who might threaten their re-election. Of course, they will not do this publicly or obviously, because then they will be accused of backflipping on issues, or weak leadership. They do it covertly and gradually, so as to maximise their appeal to the widest possible section of the electorate by the time the next election rolls up. But if a lot of people don't vote, they will only concern themselves with the issues that the people that botherd to vote care about.

 

Not all politicians do this of course, but the ones that consistently fail to represent not just those who voted for them, but those who didn't, are much less successful when it comes to being re-elected.

 

Lots of small voices add up to a bloody loud choir. A quiet voice has more chance of being heard than silence.

 

 

The idea that if you vote for someone and they aren't elected then your vote is wasted is absurd. Totally absurd. You vote is only wasted if you dont vote. If there are a poor selection of candidates to choose from, stand for election yourself! Even in a non-poroportional representative system, your vote still has an effect. A politician that wins by a hairs breath will be very careful to gain as many supporters as they can so they can win the next election safely. To do this they need to shift their policies, change their views, and listen to what the electorate wants. Your unsuccesful votes are not wasted if they make a polotician listen.

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm probably going to vote in my fed election coming up shortly because I never have any issues at the federal level except that they take too much taxes off my paycheque, and currently I'm shopping for the party that says they will reduce those. Also I have some vested interest in the funding of post-secondary institutions.

 

I believe everyone should vote, as not only are you allowed off work early to do so, but the voting system is so easy that they've already mailed the voting card to you and you can write that one X and walk over to the closest school.

Loose BOWELS are the first sign of THE CHOLERA MORBUS!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of spurious rubbish. That is a terrible analogy. A lake exists with or without your intervention.

 

So does a government. What's your point? If millions of people put a drop of hot water in the lake it will get warmer. If they put cold water in it will get colder. But YOUR drop makes no difference whatsoever.

 

sometimes the last vote counted will be the one that decides an election.

 

No serious election would be decided by a single vote. That means it would otherwise be a tie.

 

To do this they need to shift their policies, change their views, and listen to what the electorate wants. Your unsuccesful votes are not wasted if they make a polotician listen.

 

You're assuming that they get elected on the strength of their policies and views in the first place. That doesn't happen in our political system, where we vote for a local representative who just parrots whatever the party line is. The only useful action in a democracy is attempting to influence a large number of votes, through advertising, propaganda, or whatever. A single vote for the winning candidate isn't necessary, and a single vote for any losing candidate might as well never have been cast in the first place.

 

That said, I still vote, but I'm under no illusions that it actually means anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If millions of people put a drop of hot water in the lake it will get warmer. If they put cold water in it will get colder. But YOUR drop makes no difference whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

Absolutely it makes a difference. It might be a very small difference if your drop is a temperature that no-one else likes, but if there are other drops with a similar temperature, the difference will add up. What you are saying is effectively that no-ones drop makes a difference, which is patent nonsense. Everyones drop is a small contribution that adds up.

 

 

No serious election would be decided by a single vote. That means it would otherwise be a tie.

It happens occasionally, and in most electoral systems, it is not a tie. Elections are often decided by an extremely small number of votes, and the election of individual candidates can come down to a few hundred votes or less.

 

You're assuming that they get elected on the strength of their policies and views in the first place. That doesn't happen in our political system, where we vote for a local representative who just parrots whatever the party line is.

Regardless of whether you are voting for parties or individuals, it makes a difference, sometimes a very big difference. If you have a choice between two major parties and a variety of smaller parties (as is often the case), and you vote for a minor party, that is a vote the major parties didn't get. If you didn't vote at all, the result would be different, because elections are decided on the basis of valid votes cast, not the total number of potential voters.

 

It is the major parties in politics that want people to believe that voting for minor parties or candidates is a wasted vote, because they know full well that a vote for a minor party could severely affect their election chances.

 

In many governments, a minor party or independent(s) wil hold the balance of power - neither major party can pass legislation without their support, and these minor parties will endorse government legislation in exchange for concesions to the minor party's policies.

 

The only useful action in a democracy is attempting to influence a large number of votes, through advertising, propaganda, or whatever. A single vote for the winning candidate isn't necessary, and a single vote for any losing candidate might as well never have been cast in the first place.
You are missing the point that all votes are single votes. Of course your individual vote alone might not change the election result, but that is the case of everyones vote. Of course, influencing people to vote for one or another candidate will have an effect on who people vote for, but people still need to vote.
That said, I still vote, but I'm under no illusions that it actually means anything.

 

It might not mean much, but it means much more than doing nothing. It has a small effect. Nothing you do as an individual is likely to make a difference to anything, you are but one among billions. But you are missing the point of democracy if you think your tiny voice counts for nothing.

 

The powers that be want you to beleive voting is a futile waste of time, so that people will eventually give up alltogether, so they can then say "see, democracy doesn't work. Lets make me the Supreme ruler instead."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does a government. What's your point? If millions of people put a drop of hot water in the lake it will get warmer. If they put cold water in it will get colder. But YOUR drop makes no difference whatsoever.

 

By that argument it follows, that a million drops also don't matter, because every voter can decide for himself wether he wants to put that drop, and since each individual drop doesn't have an impact, the million votes are lost because tehy can't have an effect, right?

 

You're assuming that they get elected on the strength of their policies and views in the first place. That doesn't happen in our political system, where we vote for a local representative who just parrots whatever the party line is.

 

Yeah, that's unfortunately true. Franz Vranizky, a Austrian Chancelor was voted by many old women because he reminded them of their son they lost in war and "he is such a nice and handsome guy". You can't do much about something like that.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voting is a team effort. Your vote alone won't get anyone into power, but that's the point of democracy. Saying voting is pointless because a single vote doesn't count for much is a bit like saying there's no point contributing to the Dark Mod because your single contribution couldn't finish the mod. It's the lot of small efforts by many people that change your country for the better.

 

I remember in the last election we lost an important seat in the country by about 300 votes. The next day I found out not one of the students in an university hall that supported the candidate had voted. I knew a few of them well, one was my cousin, and they told me they hadn't bothered because they didn't think their vote counted. There were about 500 students in that hall! No single vote there would have made much difference, but all of them could have changed the course of politics in the country. A little less lazyness by a lot of people goes a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • The Black Arrow

      Hope everyone has the blessing of undying motivation for "The Dark Mod 15th Anniversary Contest". Can't wait to see the many magnificent missions you all may have planned. Good luck, with an Ace!
      · 0 replies
    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 2 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...