portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

imperialism & war

SELECTIVE SERVICE BUMPER STICKER

Feel free to copy and distribute.
Selective Service... because dictatorship is not free
Selective Service... because dictatorship is not free
Have fun...
good one 09.Jun.2004 17:18

keep up the good work

taxed and enslaved

are we not men

we are devo

What utter bull 10.Jun.2004 05:10

Kitanis

Now this graphic is an example of stupidty..

Dictatorship? How so? If you believe that the US is a dictatorship.. I would hate to see what your definition of a Republic or Democracy is...

Selective Service registration has been around for awhile now.. Even when Bill Clinton was President. Never has the SS been used in a draft despite some calls by crazy congressmen who occasionally suggest it. The present military do not even want a draft... why impress all the headaches on the services forcing folks to serve when they do not want too?

But the tool is there.. like it or not.. and its been there for awhile.

The two variables which determine the value of a bumper sticker. 10.Jun.2004 06:23

SF

(1) If your opponents hate it, it is a good bumper sticker.
(2) If those sharing your beliefs like it, it is a good bumper sticker.

If (1) and (2), it is a very good bumper sticker.

-

PsyOps observation (1): Effective psyops on IndyMedia, a conducted by the rightwing, usually includes a statement that the person is "on your side" but "doesn't like the method."

Using the above observation, the previous comment was made by an amature.

the qualities of dictatorship 10.Jun.2004 13:36

historian

A country is a dictatorship if it's leader is not elected in a fair election (GW was appointed by the Supreme Court; if you disagree please read the case for yourself) and if fair elections are not held. Since the votes in most precincts of the US are now being counted by corporations who have promised their support to GW and in which there is no paper trail for an audit by the citizens of this nation, we can hardly be considered a democracy any longer. Remember all dictatorships go out of there way to provide some illusion to being a democracy. To be fair, the illusion constructed in the US is the most convincing we've seen to date, but unless an election can be verified by the citizens of this country, we are not a democracy.


Thank You, Noah Webster. 10.Jun.2004 14:53

James

"A country is a dictatorship if it's leader is not elected in a fair election (GW was appointed by the Supreme Court; if you disagree please read the case for yourself) and if fair elections are not held."

That's a tortured definition of dictatorship. A dictator wields unbalanced power, which George Bush does not enjoy. A separation of powers still exists in this country. Not just at the Federal level, but also at the state and municipal levels.

You linked to a Wikipedia definition of 'dictatorship,' presumably to prove your point. Yet, it does just the opposite. Note the key phrase 'pejorative meaning' qualifying the use of the word dictatorship to describe unelected governments or leaders.

As long as we're picking nits, let's also be clear: the Supreme Court did not "appoint" George Bush. They ceased the re-counting of votes in Florida. It's a far-cry different. It did not even have the effect of promoting George Bush to the presidency. The House of Representatives had the power to disqualify Florida's electors from the electoral college, by supermajority vote. They could have, but did not.

The election was extremely close in many states across the country. It wasn't the Supreme Court which gave us George W. Bush, it was the American Voter.

umm... 10.Jun.2004 16:54

this thing here

james...

if george w. is the result of the american voter, why was there a supreme court decision? and a florida supreme court decision? and an impossible to determine without recounting election result in florida? why would a recount be neccessary if the first count was indisputable?

surely, if everything right down the line was working as perfectly as every american voter had a RIGHT to expect, none of these would have occurred, right?

something, somewhere along the way, didn't work so well. and it sure as hell wasn't the people who showed up to vote...

did you read the case for yourself? 10.Jun.2004 17:05

historian

If you would do so it would answer your charges that Bush wasn't appointed. Yes, it's a lot of reading. Pay attention to Scalia's opinion when he states:

"[t]he counting of votes that are of questionable legality . . . threaten[s] irreparable harm to [Governor Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

Not to mention that the court limited its decision to "the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer". For the Supreme Court to state that it is not setting a precedent gives away that they knew they were violating the law. If what they did was just, legal, and constitutional then they would not have had an need to limit the jurisdiction of the decision.

If you can't stomach reading the case try this write up. I've found it friendly to most people who agree with the Supreme Court's decision. And it gives them a more rational (which is not to say rational) place to argue from, that the Supreme Court broke the law, but only because they suspect the Florida Court would have broken the law (in other words, 2 wrongs make a right).

 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html

>> That's a tortured definition of dictatorship.

I would say it's novel, because the kind of dictatorship we are facing is new. Certainly controlling the vote count is nothing new in this country or abroad. But the methods are new and shouldn't fail to fit our definitions due to the technologies employed.

>> A dictator wields unbalanced power, which George Bush does not enjoy.

What would you say is the balance? Certainly not the legislature. Certainly not the "opposition party". One could argue that the courts have provided some balance, but for every case that hasn't gone the way the Bush team would like, many more have. But this is the nature of the courts to move slowly. It is trivial to argue that Bush has wielded unbalanced power considering the policies he's employed after losing the popular vote in the election. That is, a sane president elected after losing the popular vote would act with restraint. Bush has acted with, well, there are many antonyms to restraint, choose your favorite (mine would be drunkenness).

>> A separation of powers still exists in this country. Not just at the Federal level, but also at the state and municipal levels.

This is true; democracy cannot be eroded in a day. But even under regimes that most people would agree were dictatorships this would hold true. Totalitarian government is never absolute, no more than anything else. That's why the semantics are so important, because at what point does one cross the line into dictatorship. To me, that line is crossed anytime the citizens do not have fair elections. Of course, this brings the question of what is fair. Was Berlusconi's election truly fair since he controls 90% of the television in Italy? I would say probably not. Is any election where votes are being counted by a corporation fair? I would say definitely not. But if the word dictatorship offends your sensibilities perhaps we can just talk about the US being a country where many votes are counted by corporations, without a paper trail or citizen oversight. Then we can let people label it as they will.

>> You linked to a Wikipedia definition of 'dictatorship,' presumably to prove your point.

No, just to give people some more to think about.

>> Yet, it does just the opposite. Note the key phrase 'pejorative meaning' qualifying the use of the word dictatorship to describe unelected governments or leaders.

Really?

"The term generally has a pejorative meaning in reference to a government that does not allow a nation to determine its own political direction by popular election."

George W. Bush lost the popular election, thus the US did not "determine its own political direction by popular election." I suppose this is also a bias since I find the term "indirect popular election" to be an oxymoron, or at least, antithetical to the principles of democracy.

>> They ceased the re-counting of votes in Florida. It's a far-cry different."

That would be different, if it were true. But the truth is, for those who have bothered to study it (those of us with an overdeveloped sense of democracy I suppose) know that it wasn't about "re-counts". Some votes were never counted at all, sizable numbers of them, particularly in predominantly minority counties. So what we are talking about is the stopping of vote "counts" not "re-counts".

>> The House of Representatives had the power to disqualify Florida's electors from the electoral college, by supermajority vote. They could have, but did not.

So much for your "unbalanced power" argument I suppose. Of course they should have disqualified the electors. They should have done so as soon as the Florida legislature said that they would give their electors to Bush regardless of how the counts turned out. Of course, we would have been in an awful mess if that had happened.

>> It wasn't the Supreme Court which gave us George W. Bush, it was the American Voter.

Well, I'm sure you're just speaking in hyperbole. Certainly you don't believe that the majority of people voted for Bush, in the country, or in Florida. Beyond that we can always decide whether a functioning democracy has the responsibility to implement the intent of the voters. I would say it does, others disagree. There can be no argument that more people intended to vote for Gore in Florida, cast votes for Gore in Florida (though fewer were counted for Gore), and cast votes for Gore nationally. There is also no question that voters were deprived of their rights in Florida, almost all of them blacks and democrats. Katherine Harris admitted it under oath in court, and yet she's rewarded with a seat to congress (don't expect to see any balance there).

And of course, without any repercussions this administration has pushed for the same systems to be implemented across the country thanks to the HAVA (a bill which would one would expect to see some balance if there ever was one). If one can get away with a crime, make it more likely to get away with it in the future, how likely is it that one will not commit that crime in the future?

And here's where this has led. I wrote something because I feel it is important to talk about what constitutes a dictatorship. Bush is not going to run unopposed like Saddam Hussein. Does that mean it's not a dictatorship? What does dictatorship look like in the 21st century? Or how can it look? In the 2004 election we're going to be faced with something we never have been faced with as a country, a largely unverified and unverifiable election (will we even catch this year's -16,000 vote "irregularities"). Does that in and of itself constitute a dictatorship? I think it does, regardless of whom is "elected". And I think it's important to push that point. However, if the word "dictatorship" strikes some as hyperbolic we at least need to abandon the term "democracy". In a democracy citizens need to control, supervise, and oversee the mechanisms of elections.


historian is correct 11.Jun.2004 23:12

GRINGO STARS

James, what "balance of powers" to you see in this country? I see the checks and balances of power almost completely eroded - to the point of non-existence. The ultra-conservative Supreme Court has not checked the power of the executive branch, and neither has the obedient legislative branch, who SHOULD have since they are primarily of the (supposedly) "opposition" party to the chief executive. I don't see any balancing of power whatsoever, but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

here's some stickers to print out 11.Jun.2004 23:30

GRINGO STARS

Six stickers per page