Nevada to retain "None of the Above"

A federal appeals court decided this week to allow Nevada's controversial "None of the Above" voting option to stand as the printing of the state's November ballots proceeds. Nevada has had that option since 1976. Although the ballot item can't technically win an election, it does let the candidates who do win know the people don't really like them. The first federal judge tried to delay his decision until the ballots had already gone to the printer. The appeals judge struck down the lower court's decision to remove, and also chastised the judge for dragging his feet.

In 1998, Senate Leader Harry Reid beat the Republican challenger by just 428 votes. "None of the Above" got 8,000 votes. The provision can't force a new election, however.

Still, Nevada says the ballot item boosts voter turnout, bringing out disgruntled people who would otherwise simply not have voted.

The Mitt Romney camp was reportedly disappointed with the decision because they felt people who don't like either candidate might vote for him in larger numbers than for President Obama.
---------

In President Clinton's speech last night to the Democratic Convention in Charlotte - the best speech of his life, many say - he made a better case for Barack Obama's reelection than Obama himself has ever made. Some say the President may be reelected in November because of Clinton's brilliant explaining of the issues last night. Michelle Obama's perfect speech on Tuesday (in her unique "purposeful stuttering" style) set the stage though, emotionally. The President will speak tonight, accepting his party's nomination (one assumes) and closing the convention.

Existential Angst

Each man and woman creates the meaning of his or her life. Meaning is not determined by a supernatural god or any earthly authority. One is free.

So say the existentialists. Nietzsche, Sarte, et al.

According to them, this freedom to choose ones own way, this "free will" gives rise to anxiety or dread when life-decisions are made, and this feeling of "angst" can be overwhelming when you realize your choice can kill you and nobody will stop you or even care.

The Danish philosopher, writer on existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard gives the example of a person standing on the edge of a high cliff. Of course he feels the instinctual fear of falling off, but there is also the fear that he might throw himself off. No one would stop him from doing so. This "anxiety of free will" lasts only a second before he steps back, but the thought that he is alone with his choices brings on that moment of dread. This dread arises form the individuals brief encounter with true freedom of choice, and the gut-wrenching realization that no one will interfere with that choice.

Angst is more than just fear. In regular fear, one can take steps to remove the object of the fear. Angst is the fear of what you might do, if you so chose.

I never said Nietsche or Jean-Paul Sarte made sense.

Anyway, with this in mind, I now consider Adam and whether he experienced angst before he took a bite of the apple. I think it was "forbidden fruit", not "apple." If there were any angst it would not arise from a concept of good and evil, since Adam had no such knowledge yet. Any angst would have simply come from the perceived consequence of disobeying a being he felt great respect for, such as a child contemplating disobeying his parent. It was only after his first bite that he realized he had done something wrong. This is rather a complex thing to sort out. Add to this the realization that God KNEW what choice Adam was going to make, it boggles the mind even more. This "free will" thing is pretty hard for me to understand.

After talking about the angst of true free will, Kierkegaard went on to consider the concept of "despair". Despair is loss of hope, and ensues when the prime motivation for happiness in your life, your driving force, is taken from you. If a famous singer has built her entire life around being able to sing beautifully, and then suddenly she loses that ability, she feels despair if she has nothing to fall back on. Imagine the feeling which a long-time fan of The Heart of Midlothian must feel. That is true despair. Utter hopelessness. I think it was Nietsche who gave that particular example.

"Let each one learn what he can; both of us can learn that a person’s unhappiness never lies in his lack of control over external conditions, since this would only make him completely unhappy." (Kierkegaard: "Either/Or".)

And...

"When the God-forsaken worldliness of earthly life shuts itself in complacency, the confined air develops poison, the moment gets stuck and stands still, the prospect is lost, a need is felt for a refreshing, enlivening breeze to cleanse the air and dispel the poisonous vapors lest we suffocate in worldliness. ... Lovingly to hope all things is the opposite of despairingly to hope nothing at all. Love hopes all things – yet is never put to shame. To relate oneself expectantly to the possibility of the good is to hope. To relate oneself expectantly to the possibility of evil is to fear. By the decision to choose hope one decides infinitely more than it seems, because it is an eternal decision."  (Kierkegaard: "Works of Love.") 

Are Americans too stupid to be allowed to vote?

Things are getting worse in just about all points of measurement. So say the people to the pollsters. Few people think they are better off than their parents were and few think the future prospects are bright. The number of people who think Congress is doing a good job has never been lower, say the polls. If you ask people who they blame for whatever is wrong with America today, mostly it is the politicians.

The crooked, lying, cheating, bought-and-paid-for politicians. The politicians who live high on the hog and get wined and dined by special-interest lobbies. Thieves, mostly. Looking to get elected and reelected and saying what they think the voters want to hear. And most of them WILL get reelected: the voters are saps.

There are a few good politicians. Precious few. Many start with good intentions but get lost in the "system" of corruption and end up just like all the rest. The ones that stay true to their values find the road difficult and fraught with compromise.

Why are these uncaring, selfish, racketeers allowed to live the way they live, pass bills that benefit their benefactors, ignore the will of the people? Because the people keep voting them in, that's why. And after they vote the thieves and rascals into office, the people don't demand accountability.

Believe it or not, there are some Americans who have a clear vision of how they want to live and how they want their country to be, have informed themselves of the issues and what is going on. How many? I don't know - maybe 5%. The rest? Well, half of them are so lazy or uninspired by the available criminals to vote for that they just don't bother to vote at all. The other half, the ones responsible for continuing to vote these arrogant useless scalawags into office, vote for their own reasons. Analysis of what is best for the country seldom enters into their voting decisions.

They vote for a candidate because he or she has black skin. They vote because their candidate is hispanic. They vote because their guy is Jewish. Or they vote for the candidate who is NOT black, hispanic, jewish, or bald. Whatever. Many vote for the person or party they are told to vote for: union members vote Democrat. So do minority groups. Each party claims its automatic voters from various special-interest groups, from environmentalists to lumberjacks to Southern Baptists. I suppose. Some have educated themselves on the issues and know exactly what direction they want to see America go. Too many, however, as so dumb they couldn't tell you where the Statue of Liberty is located. They live for their next fix and they vote for the candidate who promises not to cut off their welfare check.

That brings us to a dilemma: should all Americans be allowed to vote? If so, should all votes be equal? What if continuing to do it that way insures that we continue down the same path of corruption we see today? If the answer is "yes," then we probably are doomed to continue to deteriorate and see our standard of living continue to fall. But if the answer is "no," then what? Who gets to vote? I mean, besides ME, of course.