Lesbians on "Leno"

you might want to know a little bit about their history. there was a time in this country when certain people did have to take a test in order to vote. but they were used primarily to disenfranchise people of color and other oppressed folk, so the practice was deemed unconstitutional.

it's true we have a lot of stupid people, but we also have a lot of really intelligent, thoughtful people as well, like, um, everywhere else in the world.

So.... being the implied dumb, and weird American.... um.... I think I can point out at least one difference between the candidates (who you claim "aren't all that different"). ONE'S A REPUBLICAN AND ONE'S A DEMOCRAT!!

To me, well, that seems to be a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between the two candidates.

I was taught that if I didn't have anything nice to say then I shouldn't say it at all. With that thought in mind, I'm going to refrain from stooping to your level and completely bashing your country and the ideologies of your country's people.

Have a great day/night.

purrito >' '<

The two candidates may be politicians but that does NOT make them the same. Do a little research and find out for yourself why your statement was so erroneous.  

Second, America is a free country and every citizen should have the right to vote and that means even if there are people voting that have no idea what the issues are. The administration of test has been used in the past to discriminate against certain social groups. Discrimination of this sort is simply wrong and cannot be allowed.

Third, what is so weird about it coming down to two choices. They are presidential candidates who will control the executive branch of the US government. They are kept in check by the legislative branch, consisting of 535 members. And both branches are checked by the judicial branch. So yes the US is a "freakin huge" country but the US has an extensive government to make sure the Democracy is alive and well.    

Look, I'm no fan of the two-party system, but the rest was kinda ridiculous. The foundation of American democracy is that you don't have to be educated to vote, whether or not you know about the issues. The prevailing logic being that people will educate themselves to some degree because who runs the country has a direct effect on the voter.

As someone else mentioned, poll tests have been used to disenfranchise African-American voters. After seeing some of the gross abuses of power around voter registration, I really believe they would be used that way again--the Secretary of State for each State would make tests that give a bias one way or the other.

Also, there are some interesting studies that show that folks who are uneducated generally don't vote because there is a lot of rhetoric (with which you are unfamilar, I guess) telling people to be educated voters, which leads people who haven't completed enough school to feel like voting is something elitist. (The numbers for voters by income and race are staggering!) So, I think the rhetoric should be "vote, vote, vote!" It's really hard to live in this country and not get at least some of the differences between the two candidates; continue the war v. pull troops out, socialized health care v. a voucher, laissez-faire v. regulation...the list goes on. I'd rather everyone feel like voting is something they should be doing, rather than feeling left out.

And, sure, it is the right of any American not to vote. It's also the right of any celebrity to tell them they're reckless for not voting. Celebrities also do ad campaigns to encourage people not to use hate language (like the "that's so gay" campaign mentioned in BLWE) which is the right of any American to use. But, like hate language, just cause it's your right not to vote doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Finally, yes, American Democracy is alive and well. It's not perfect, Americans DO make stupid choices, but show me a country where it is perfect and there aren't ridiculous and stupid leaders. The important thing is, every 4 years we can choose whoever we want to lead our executive branch. And every 4 years there will be a peaceful exchange of power at the highest level. We get to try again. We get to continue to change. Democratic governments are a living thing--they change, they evolve, they improve, they get worse, they nearly crumble, they rebuild their foundation. As long as we keep trying, keep discusing and keep looking for new answers democracy will be fine. That goes for the US and all other democratic nations.

I suspect that the reason you see so many celebrities, and just plain old regular people, chastising American citizens for not voting is because of what it cost to get us to this place.  The cost was blood, and far too often, people's lives.  People fought and died so that I could excercise the right to freely participate in our democracy.  I would not dare take that for granted.  So, yeah, it matters.. yeah, I admit that I am openly disdainful of people who declare that they don't vote or aren't planning to vote.  Don't even get me started on people who still claim to be undecided at this point in the campaign, 'cause that's a whole other aneurysm.

They don't abdicate their citizenship when they become famous, so they have just as much of a right under the Constitution to speak out on issues that are important to them as anyone else.  You don't have to agree with a particular issue.  Some of them are well informed and some are not, just like the rest of the population.

As to the testing of voters it just doesn't work.  For one thing some politicians will change their stances on issues over time and during a campaign, so whatever test you might want to give would have to take that into account.  Before the Civil Rights movement some groups of people were singled out for tests, but the test questions were quite bizarre and completely at the discretion of the tester.  How many jellybeans are in a jar of several hundred?  Could you answer just by looking at the jar?  Who was the fourth govenor of Colorado?  What's the third largest city in Missouri?  Sound crazy?  That kind of thing went on for real.  Other forms of intimidation consisted of beatings and murder.  Have you ever heard of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner?

 http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html

How about Fannie Lou Hamer?

http://www.answers.com/topic/fannie-lou-hamer

The few I mentioned are just a couple of the more famous ones.  Thousands of people put their lives on the line for our right to vote.  It was hard fought because it is power.

is that there HAVE been tests at the polls before, and they were used to disenfranchise blacks, women, the poor, and anyone else who was denied a basic education.  in other words, keeping the vote for the rich, white and educated so that those who labored to keep them rich wouldn't have a say in things.

now i am just as frustrated with people who do not educate themselves in a time where information is at its most accessible, but i also know the truth about how that information is disseminated.  the mainstream media (television and newspapers) is owned by the corporations whose vested interests are in keeping people ignorant.  the internet is still only accessible to those with enough money to buy a computer and afford the monthly fee.  and the education in this country is still miles above for those areas with money, and dreadful for those urban and rural areas without.

it's a big problem, and certainly ignorance in a time of choosing our "leaders" is frustrating, but testing people has always been a tool of disenfranchisement used by those in power to keep those without, continually without.

I live in a country where voting is compulsory... which forces most people to at least learn a little bit (or be bribed by the government) about policies and stuff because they HAVE to make a choice... of course you still get the idiots who a) think the whole process is a waste of time b) the choices are bad anyway c) go with the devil you know... the only test you have to pass is to be a citizen... I think it works for us (mostly) because even the idiots get a say, but the most people allow themselves to understand a little bit about policies... and democracy is about everyone having a say (even the intellectucally challenged inbred bogans).

I can understand what you're trying to say (I think)... that it's sort of annoying (well it would be to me if I lived in the U.S anyway) that everyone is just telling people to vote without actually instructing them on the consequences of that vote. Like it or not, some people are easily persuadable (I am apparently highly persuadable when I have been drinking and there are naked women in front of me I have just discovered).

What scares me the most (and unfortunately the U.S gov't has a lot of sway in the global western world) is that the election could very well come down to the racist vote. That a bunch of white hillbilly hicks will vote for McCain simply because he is white. Not because he has good policy, not because he has great visions for the future and not because Obama's policies are terrible... but simply because of the difference in skin tone. I would like to think that the majority of Americans are not racist and would not allow that to affect their visions for a brighter U.S but we all know there is a pocket of racist people who will probably come out and vote, who wouldn't ordinarily vote, because the thought of a black guy winning is too nauseating for them.

Which is sad. To me.

I watch every U.S election coverage item on our news (which believe it or not is actually alot more often than the state election we are about to have this weekend!!!!! Apparently U.S politics is more important than local government, but I digress) and I find the U.S system of democracy puzzling - they spend so long campaigning, and spending money just to convince their own parties to put them forward for the country to select them... during which time the potential candidates rubbish each other. Then when one has been selected, everyone is supposed to forget about all the rubbishing that has gone on - all the dirt that has been put out for all to see, and support the winning candidate. It almost seems like a diservice to the party to have these... pre-election elections!

It may be because I'm not used to the U.S system, but it seems so long winded. Doesn't anyone in the U.S get sick and tired of hearing about elections? I am sick of all elections right now, both the U.S one and the local one... I'll be glad when you guys make your choice - evern if it's the "wrong" one (whichever one is wrong).

It does seem like an awful lot of power to hand to just one person though...

Sorry for the length.

It's a fair question, but I believe Wanda falls under the "out in actions, not in words" category I described in the Visibility Matters column I wrote last month about the new definition of "out". She's out in her personal life, talks about her girlfriend in her stand-up act, speaks out about gay rights, and told the Dallas Voice in the article I linked to in the post above that she doesn't care if anyone calls her an "out and proud" lesbian. So I am. :)

I saw the front page and thought, "holy sh*t, afterellen just outed wanda sykes."

I am editing my commentary.  Don't feel comfortable with what I disclosed.

I always sorta had a suspicion... she often refers to her divorce but I thought she mentioned her girlfriend(s) in her stand up routine, as her "girl friends" as in friends who happen to be girls!

Anywho, love the woman, she's waaaaaaay too funnay! crank yankers, curb your entusiasm, she's brilliant!

gotta root for her!

your family, your family, your family! - French and Saunders -

I'm UK based and so the link was unavailable for the Rachel Maddow clip (US only, apparently) but enjoyed Ellen and Wanda.

From what has been shown on AE, Rachel's show is something I'd like to tune into so thanks for this tip for her radio show.