November 3
...serving up your daily dish.
It was a virtual landslide for John Kerry (in Baristaville):
John Kerry got 80% of the vote in Montclair (14,544 to 3,722), 58% of the vote in Bloomfield (10,352 to 7,573) and 60% of the vote in Glen Ridge (2,249 to 1,513). That means Kerry received 68% of the Baristaville vote (27,145 to 12,808). Not only that, people actually got up off their lazy asses and voted, turnout was 72% in Montclair, 64% in Bloomfield and 76% in Glen Ridge, that's 69% overall:
November 3, 2004 in Politics, Postcards from the EB | Permalink
It is good to know that we live in an informed and responsible community. There is so little to be optimistic about right now.
Posted by: down in the dumps | Nov 3, 2004 12:47:34 PM
Imagine my surprise as I peer out my office window and see the world hasn’t come to an abrupt end now that W has won BOTH the popular and electoral votes. With this new popular mandate (albeit not in baristaville or Europe) and the knowledge he won’t have to mute his message / strategy because he’s now a second-termer, let’s hope we see some real substantive changes and action. Let’s privatize social security, let’s put a stake in the ground in the Middle east, let’s overhaul the tax code and make permanent the tax cuts! Life is indeed good!
Posted by: WWW | Nov 3, 2004 1:25:42 PM
You forgot the installation of Ten Commandments monuments in the courthouses and the perpetuation of gays status as second-class status. Hey, though, glad to hear that your life is good. I hear Pat Robertson's is, too.
Posted by: David P. Powell | Nov 3, 2004 3:28:45 PM
Er, second class citizens. Sorry, I was blinded by the light of God's renewed grace being shone down upon the country.
Posted by: David P. Powell | Nov 3, 2004 3:30:23 PM
If John Kerry was supposedly the Dems' best man of the hour, how come he couldn't beat someone like Shrubya?
How come Bush won the most popular votes since 1988?
How come only 10% of voters aged 18-24 came out to vote?
THESE are the questions worth asking!
Posted by: Miss Martta | Nov 3, 2004 4:34:51 PM
because Miss Martta, again we were robbed by a corrupt election-that's why
Posted by: mary | Nov 3, 2004 10:44:28 PM
"again we were robbed by a corrupt election-that's why"
Is there a smoking gun I'm not aware of?
Posted by: David P. Powell | Nov 3, 2004 10:47:07 PM
talked to some of my gay friends prior to the election and I was amazed how their sexuality was THE defining monolithic reason for NOT voting for Bush (er, voting for Kerry I mean.) while I'm no fan of any of the ballet initiatives that were passed in 10 states, get over it. I don't vote a certain way bc I'm hetero, i do not understand why u vote a certain way bc you're homo? Who cares?
Posted by: WWW | Nov 4, 2004 7:28:52 AM
Are you proposing that heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal under the law?
You "don't vote a certain way because you're hetero" because no matter which way you vote, you're in no danger of being fired from your job because of your sexual orientation. No matter which way you vote, your relationship with a life partner is going to be recognized and imbued with benefits by the state.
I don't vote a certain way because I have brown hair. That's because my having brown hair has no bearing on my standing in society.
Posted by: David P. Powell | Nov 4, 2004 9:22:12 AM
"because Miss Martta, again we were robbed by a corrupt election-that's why"
Uhh, Mary, I don't think so...not when someone wins the most popular votes in the history of the presidency. Also, he won 96% of ALL of the counties in the US. Unless all these people were held at gunpoint, I don't think "we wuz robbed."
Posted by: Miss Martta | Nov 4, 2004 9:31:50 AM
as far as i'm aware, you can't fire someone bc of their sexual orientation (do you have ANY idea how difficult it it to fire someone these days, even for cause?) and it's to a co's own detriment to to fire someoe bc they're openly gay as my gay friends are among the best educated I know (though they did vote for kerry . . . ) "imbued with benefits by the state"??? HUH??? Other than my marriage penalty tax, not sure what benefits I as a hetero get?
Posted by: WWW | Nov 4, 2004 9:48:26 AM
Your educated gay friends don't enjoy EEOE protections. This is not my opinion or a subjective evaluation of how easily they can be fired: it's a fact.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/index.html
"Other than my marriage penalty tax, not sure what benefits I as a hetero get?"
Ever adopt a child?
Posted by: David P. Powell | Nov 4, 2004 11:15:31 AM
Since we're throwing around links . . .
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce the protections that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do. The relevant federal agencies are listed below. For assistance in locating your state or local agency, contact the EEOC office nearest you.
http://www.opm.gov/er/address2/guide01.asp
"Executive Order 13087, issued on May 28, 1998, prohibits discrimination based upon sexual orientation within Executive Branch civilian employment. The Executive Order states this policy uniformly by adding sexual orientation to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited. The other categories are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, and age. On May 2, 2000, Executive Order 13153 added "status as a parent" to the list of categories for which discrimination is prohibited."
Posted by: WWW | Nov 4, 2004 11:28:30 AM
