Way back in the day, Jewdar was no great fan of the Roseanne Barr photo spread–not because it was offensive, but because it was incomprehensible. Still, one thing was clear–she was Hitler, and the cookies were “burnt Jew” cookies (whatever that means). So we’re a little irked that Roseanne, who has started proclaiming again on Israeli Affairs, has enlisted Heeb on her behalf, proclaiming that in fact the whole shoot was some sort of Pro-Palestinian parable.
Roseanne, you’re free, white and 21, so we can’t stop you from opening your mouth. But if you’re going to go tilting at Israeli windmills, can you at least not rewrite history in the process, and make Heeb your Sancho Panza?
Wow, so Roseanne Barr is acting like a crazy asshole. Who ever could have seen THAT coming? You folks were dumb enough to put her in the magazine, you get what you deserve.
Roseanne Barr really lost her mind. She needs a psycho-terapy. Any volunteer?
roseanne is awesome. if heeb is so offended by strong, un-PC women who speak their mind you shouldnt have featured her in the first place. the jewish community used to thrive on diversity of opinion and ethical debate, now when someone like roseanne criticizes israeli policy they get attacked, shunned and called crazy. personally i think she’s brave to speak out like she does despite the whining and bullying of so-called friends of israel.
I don’t know that Heeb is offended by strong, un-PC women, so much as by women who come up with a stupid idea for a photo shoot (which granted, Heeb ran), and then misrepresent what the photoshoot was portraying.
Also, reading her interview in the Forward, I’d say her grasp of European Jewish history leaves a bit to be desired.
are you suggesting that I forced you to take that picture of me?
Israelis are in the streets right now over Gaza, and the fascist leaning government of Bibi. Were you unable to get funding from progressive jews? Right wing aipac bankers were all you could find to bail you out? At what cost? Throwing left leaning jews like me to the wolves?
You guys got pissed that i wasn’t able to bail your magazine out with big cash, but I did try-and this shows what shitheads you are, and why you will go broke again. toadies. You guys loved the Hitler pictures and brought and baked the cookies yourselves. Over the weeks that we discussed the photo shoot you urged me to go farther and farther. You never said you were offended. I have the photos of all of your staffers holding the cookies and laughing. you are cowards sell outs and turds.
you asked me to do this photo shoot at the time when I was completely critical of the blockade on Gaza on my Pacifica radio show. I said that Israel was acting like Germany in targeting a civilian populace. That’s when you called me.
You did a photo shoot for the Germany Issue, and a point was made in the magazine that they were “burnt Jew” cookies. There were stories all over the media about “burnt Jew” cookies. So for you, several years later, to give an interview in which you claim they were “burnt Palestinians” and this was some sort of political commentary on Israel is a bit too late to be believable. I’m happy to apologize if I mischaracterized your intent; all you need to do is offer some evidence that you tried to set the record straight at the time.
And you certainly don’t have pictures of “all of” Heeb’s staffers, since I was vacationing in Israel at the time it was shot.
There needs to be a law made – if you’re Jewish and you’ve got a gripe with Israel – YOU NEED TO BLOODY MOVE THERE – LIVE THERE FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS – till you earn the right to criticize her. Get it Rivka? Now go and smoke some more weed.
I reserve the right as a Jew to criticize anything, anywhere.
You can reserve the *right* but don’t start crying when that *right* goes wrong and the criticism come back to you 10 fold as it always will in accordance with the Law of Reciprocity. And that goes for both of you – enough already.
Am I crying?
I’ll stick to the comedians.
You wanted Roseanne in your magazine and now you do not like what she did ? That is YOUR issue not hers. You took the photos and you asked her to be in your magazine, now your turning your back on her, after she helped you guys. You guys are not nice at all.
She was in the magazine taking certain pictures which had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. She is now claiming that the photoshoot, in our magazine, was some sort of statement about Israeli acting like Nazi Germany. She could say that the photoshoot was about the PA acting like Nazi Germany, and I’d make the same comments. Like most people, I couldn’t care less what she thinks about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I care that she’s making up this whole story about the magazine running a photoshoot that reflected her thoughts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After it came out there was this whole brouhaha over her dressed like Hitler baking “Jew cookies,” and at no point, did she stop to say “Oh, those weren’t Jew cookies, they were Palestinian cookies.” Now, two years later, she suddenly decides that that was the point? Give me a break. Like I said before, if anybody can show me where she said this Palestinian stuff two years ago, I’m happy to apologize. She should live to 120, and do whatever she wants, but she shouldn’t drag Heeb along with her by making up this fantasy about her photo shoot being some sort of courageous political stand about the Palestinians, when it wasn’t.
But hey, why take my word for it. Here’s what Roseanne said this past week in The Forward:
Do you regret dressing up as Hitler for Heeb? No, I dressed up to protest against Israel’s actions against Palestinians in Gaza. The cookies were Palestinian cookies. I won’t let the soul of the Jewish people be betrayed by right-wingers who do those things. In Hawaii the community is valued like it was in Israel at first with the kibbutzim and such. The community worked based on need. Israelis in the streets at the moment are saying the same things by the hundreds of thousands and we won’t be silenced by Bibi or others. Those are not our values. Our people are better than that.
and here’s what she wrote on her own blog on July 30, 2009:
for those who wonder about me as hitler in heeb
Heeb is a humor magazine for young hip jewish people, and I was asked to be in the “germany” issue. I always thought Hitler had some extreme self loathing about not being “male enough”, and i thought it was funny to show him in housewife drag. After all, the german housefraus loved the guy and did whatever he told them to do. They were falling all over themselves, screaming in the streets as if he were a rockstar, pressing their children to him for a kiss, as he exiled them back into the kitchen and out of the professions, and blamed everything on “liberals”.
Hitler served the german industrialists who put him in power, as if he were their little housefrau. When they thought they could turn a buck by cooking and gassing their minority groups, he helped set up their lines of federal credit to do so.
I thought that Hitler in drag making jew cookies was a very accurate way of depicting the whole German Gestalt. Also, I hate Hitler, because he thought that artists should be censored. I also hate everyone else who thinks that way.
So which one of us is turning our backs on the photo shoot?
My fellow matriots…I do like the photoshoot but I have one question. How do we close the text box?
BTW, I have written an article about Israeli elections:
Thank you for looking into this very important issue.
James O. Ogle 111 [Free Parliamentary]
(Born a third generation JOO)
Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!
Why do you THINK they called it Google?
PS Please join the BoD on the search engine program.
Wow. Turn on one another, why don’t you? Roseanne Barr is an advocate and if one is going to pick away at her character in order to guarantee some solid right-wing funds, then HEEB deserves to die a slow, painful death.
Wow, Heeb magazine, you are so progressive! I think your attack on Roseanne Barr is right in line with all other lame-stream media tactics….
Is it possible that some of that staff here used to work for Foxx news?
I would like to make you honorary memebers of the “circle jerk” club, as i know that’s all that’s going on at this magazine.
What i wonder is, does AIPAC deposit directly into your accounts? Or do you just run it thru the corp?
* * *
Israeli D’Hondt parliament seat distribution system:
Currently there are 120 seats in the Knesset and the Israeli government requires the threshold of 2% for a party or independent to win one of the 120 seats.
This results in a maximum satisfaction level of 50%, minus 60 votes, of the votes that were cast to elect the government made up of 120 MPs.
If there are sixty new innovative parties and independents who all garnered exactly 2% of the votes in the election, then they are all elected with 100% of the votes.
Only 1/2 of the seats (60) can be elected with a threshold of 2% (2% of 100% is 2 and 2% of 120 is 2.4 and 2.4 x 50 is sixty seats elected), so the remaining 60 names must be elected somehow to fill the parliament, and can be elected with a minimum of one vote each.
So take away 60 votes from the 50% (60 MPs) elected, to guarantee the election of the remaining 60 seats. Total maximum guaranteed satisfaction level is 50% of the total votes cast, minus sixty votes when there are 60 innovative parties and independents who garner the minimum 2% required.
Any other combination results in a lower satisfaction level.
* * *
USA Parliament’s Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system:
Should the Israeli government use pure proportional representation under the USA Parliament’s Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, then the satisfaction level is guaranteed to be much higher, 99.12% plus 120 votes.
The way it works, is you divide the total number of votes cast by the closest way to a 121-way tie (1/121ths or .826%), so the first 120 names that break the tie with one more vote are elected.
Last preference #121 does not get plus “one vote” and so #121 does not get elected.
Total votes cast / 121 = .826% of the total votes. So the threshold is .826 (or 1/121th) plus one vote. (.826 plus one vote) x 120 seats = 99.12% plus 120 votes.
So the total minimum satisfaction level is 99.12% plus 120 votes, the total guaranteed minimum number of votes which elects the government under the Sainte-Lague system, elected to the Israeli Knesset whether there is 60 innovative new parties and independents or any number/combination of parties and independents.
99.12% plus 120 votes total satisfaction is a much bigger satisfaction level than 50% minus 60 votes, a difference of 49.12% plus 60 more people would be satisfied with the results because their vote actually elected a name.
Varying combinations of numbers of votes cast under this system will result in a highers satisfaction level, i.e. numbers of votes that count to elect a name.
* * *
The 8th USA Parliament will elect up to 1000 names in 2012 under the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, with a guaranteed satisfaction level of 99.9% plus 1000 votes.
If anyone can comment on what I wrote, I’d like to hear how I can explain this better, of any other comments too.
Whilst I adore Roseanne, I watch the re-runs here in Oz every day after work…not loving the season where they won the lotto but still… there’s no denying that what she is saying now contradicts what she said in the wake of the controversy over the photo shoot.
She originally said she was making fun of hitler etc and his crusade and the holocaust…now it’s a reference to recent Israeli actions? Two very different things, it could have been a comment on BOTH but it was not presented as such by Heeb or Roseanne (in any media I’ve found). Whilst she may have expressed that privately, we’re dealing with the media here and ‘asides’ behind the camera are irrelevant.
I’m not overly offended at either suggestion, but to deny there’s been a change in the reported theme of the photoshoot is patently false.
“I’m not overly offended at either suggestion, but to deny there’s been a change in the reported theme of the photoshoot is patently false.”
The Sainte-Lague parliament vote counting project is a big deal for Israel, other countries, and primary the USA.
True, Roseanne is not perfect, and neither is anyone. But she does have the assets. A starring role that enables her to try to play a special role in peace, equality, spiritualism and democracy.
See things in prospective from the parliament’s point of view.
I’m not exactly a great writer, but the good of the all, is what I’m trying to write about.
Everyone gets so bent out of shape when Roseanne doesn’t cooperate. Me too. She still hasn’t ranked choices on a ballot, and that’s what really makes the parliament go.
So we still play the game, to get true democracy in the USA and elsewhere. It’s kind of like we’re playing football and she’s the quarterback who can’t hold the ball with twenty seconds left in the 4th and we’re down two points. Maybe the field goal?
Or maybe she’s the hitter who’s up to bat, down two strikes in the bottom of the ninth, we have men on 2nd and 3rd base, and she’s never hit a ball yet. Our defense can’t save us, we’re down a point and it’s all in her hands. But we haven’t lost yet. A stolen base or two is in order.
Maybe she’ll figure out a way? She is smart after all.
We as a team need to believe in her, and we need to just play ball to its fullest and have fun.
Nobody has it as good as our team at this moment.
She’s like one of 100, or one of 1000. She does her part, but the other 99 or 999 have to still function with her imperfections.
We’re going to need a big army to get every citizen to make this work. We have a big job ahead of us.
I’ll check back here later, in case anyone wants to continue this dialogue with me, as a representative of the elected members of the big team. I really enjoy this, and would love to get some feedback.
BTW, if you get a chance, could you please play along and get some comments from her about what I’m doing with her as one of our three prime ministers? Please look at my web site, and tell me what you think. I have plenty of interesting stories about the operation.
“The Sainte-Lague parliament vote”
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Should I? I may have missed the connection between Roseanne and your…thing.
My comment was purely re: someone contradicting something they said in public that’s been heavily documented…I have no idea what the Parliament vote thingy is.
Though I’m sure it’s both fascinating and delightful…I’m not an American or an Israeli so I’m not sure whether it would be relevant to me?
Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the interaction, and thanks to Heeb Media too, for providing this forum.
Puck, what country are you a voter from, if your true country even has elections? Maybe I can explain in that context?
In regards to Roseanne, she’s one of our star team players in this tiny USA Parliament operation. We’re people from different political parties, the Constitution, Libertarian, Green, as well as independents, Democratic, Republican, plus splinter groups like Roseanne’s Green Tea, and my Free Parliamentary Party, and many others, including make up your own…and she’s helping us grow with more people.
Everyone can make contradicting comments, you and I as well, and that’s no big deal.
The BIG deal, is bringing a new peaceful revolution based on this USA Parliament operation.
I’ll be happy to explain more about this, it’s a peaceful revolution based on votes cast as proof. But we’re very small, about 1/250th the size of most of our allies, such as the American Constitution Party.
But we’re real people, and Roseanne is one of us, the All Party System (and independents).
If you’d look as what we’ve accomplished this year as a team, then you’d surely forgive her for making contradictory statements.
“If your true country even has elections”…I’m not sure if you were trying to be offensive or whether you’re simply a sociopath…
We’ve had universal suffrage, and therefore legitimate, democratic elections, for quite a bit longer than the rest of the world has…except New Zealand…but they’re barely a country :P
If you want a political system that works, you’d be better adopting ours.
One need only look at the debt ceiling crisis and the US government paralysis to see how well their system has worked.
Australia and New Zealand. That’s what we’re talking about.
I have not researched the systems that Australia and New Zealand are using, although both countries are being billed as proportional representation in Wikipedia, and I’ve known that the countries has pretty good systems.
From my experience, I’m still very skeptical until I learn the exact nature of the system, because there are so many variations from country to country. Are there single-winner districts, or are the elections at-large? Maybe some of both?
I am aware that the New Zealand government switched to a more proportional system about twelve years ago, after a 150-year struggle with a two-party system.
It’s difficult to find the information online, Wikipedia says that Australia uses IRV which by my definition is not proportional because that implies single winner districts. I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. They do say preferential voting is used, but without multi-winner districts preferential voting (PrV) is still primitive.
Can you explain how many MPs are elected simultaneously per district or any other details? The more the better, because each additional MP per district lowers the threshold for each member to be elected.
I’ve several good friends who are from there, and one was involved with campaigns too, but I’ve lost touch with them, so any info. is helpful.
Currently, I’m lobbying the OccupyWallStreet group on their forum, trying to get them to adopt the Sainte-Lague voting system to organize.
Hmmm if a district is the same as an electorate…it’s just one winner, the candidates need a certain theshold to make it to the next ’round’…if you’re first preference doesn’t get enough then they’re votes are redistributed to the 2nd preference (which will vary depending on what each voter decided as a 2nd pref) but that’s for the House of Reps (Lower House) with the Senate (Upper House) you can vote either above the line and select one party, or below the line and preference all…say…75ish. If you vote above the line you get a single vote for one party, if they fail to make the quota they then determine whome they will distribute their votes to (preference deals are made publicly before the election, they’re not binding but I can’t recall anyone important ever breaking one) if you vote below the line (only 5% of voters do) then you control where your vote goes to if the first preference fails to make quota.
Nez Zealand still has a two party system, the current PM John Key is a National Party member (and a jew!) his predecessor was a Labor PM (much as ours is currently, and Tony Blair/Gordon Brown in Voting is, of course, compulsory.
A state will send a number of MP’s from various parties to the HoR but they’re voted in by their individual electorate within that state, not the whole state. States (and to a lesser extent, territories) vote for Senators to go to the Upper House as a whole state, not as electorates.
I suspect many of the US’ problems could be solved by enforcing compulsory voting…I sometimes think only the extremists on either side are sufficiently motivated to vote in US elections.
It would be beyond belief that a developed nation could, en masse, elect someone like George Bush or consider electing someone like Palin unless the majority of sane people were apathetic enough not to vote.
This is probably a better reference than Wikipedia.
Not that you can trust anything our current government says.
Yes, it’s starting to sound like Australia and New Zealand are using single winner districts, preference voting.
While preference voting is a great advance over plurality voting, I am against single winner districts even under preference voting, because when the biggest party messes up, what’s your best alternative? Usually the second biggest party. So they just switch back and forth, creating a two-party system.
The USA Green and Libertarian Parties support preference voting in single winner districts (IRV, or instant runoff voting), and the thing that distinguishes what I’m trying to accomplish with Roseanne, is that I (we) are trying to establish multi-winner districts of two or more per district known as the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, not single winner known as IRV.
Both systems do use preference voting, also known as ranked choice voting and STV (the single transferable vote).
It requires at-large multi-winner districts, the more the better, sort of like the Israeli system, where the 120 national seats are elected as one 120 at-large district. Although Israel set a 2% threshold, which is wrong, and they actually use the D’Hondt system, which is not as good as the Sainte Lague.
There are very many versions, and pretty much every government is different. Germany uses the MMP (mixed member proportional) with a 5% minimum threshold, all of which prevents true mathematical proportional representation.
People just don’t understand the math, but basically the system that the USA Parliament committee that’s supporting Hon Roseanne Barr’s campaign, the “All Party System (and independents) Campaign Victory Fund 2012”, ONLY promotes the use of multi-winner districts of two or more. The more the better.
In sum, while I do like Australia’s compulsory voting (I think there’s a $50. fine when you don’t vote in Australia), and I do like preference voting which is a step in the right direction, I am still very unhappy with single winner districts. The promotion of multi-winner districts is what we need ASAP, everywhere.
The more per district, the lower the threshold for each name, and the more exact the representation.
For example, if 60% were democrats, then democrats would win in all the single winner districts (100%) if the support was 60% across the board.
But in multi-winner districts, the “losers”, might get 40%, and the democrats would still have the majority of 60%, but at least the losers would have a seat at the table.
Roseasnne really likes this system, and in her speech she has said “Capitalists and Socialists can work together”, and I agree. The Sainte-Lague system allows for 100 to 1000 independents to be represented, any segment that garners 1/101ths or 1/1001ths, plus one vote, depending on the numbers of open seats in the district, would have a seat at the table. Thus electing a lot more independents and other less homogenized, independent political enthusiasts from across the spectrum.
Voting reform activists should judge political systems on how proportional the system is, and the most proportional is the best.
We do have other minor parties (The Greens poll around 10%) but arguably the reason we have two major parties is because, between them, they represent the views of around 90+ % of the population (certainly voting patterns reflect that).
The party that doesn’t gold Government (the ‘losers’ if you will) can still control the upper house (though that generally ends poorly) and our current Government (if it can be called that) is a…not coalition…alliace maybe of the ALP, the Greens and 3 Independent MP’s.
There is indeed a fine of some amount but the Government isn’t overly vigilant about claiming it…I think we’re so used to voting that it’s simply become something we consider as standard as paying taxes etc.
I’d suggest the conclusion that “most proportional is the best” is not particularly supported by the premises in the argument though.
Someone getting 40% of the vote may, arguably, be entitled to assist in policy formulation (I’d argue that democracy is a system of majority rule even if that majority is 50% +1) but should someone, say, with 10% of the vote have a say?
Our current system has 3 MP’s who wouldn’t even have gotten 1% of the overall national vote in an alliance with a party that got 10% and one that got around 50%. This unholy alliance has caused chaos with the entire country being forced to submit to the will of independents and minor parties, enacting insane policies.
Arguably if support for Dems (or Republicans) is 60% across the board, well…they should probably be the ones calling the shots.
I understand the argument that everyone is entitled to a say…but politics must work in the real world and the reality is that, in many issues, the positions held by opposing parties are mutually exclusive and no real compromise can be reached (and whilst the compromise is debated, nothing is done).
I guess my issue is that the USA has such massive problems…and I really question whether their voting system is the cause or the solution to those problems and whether the changes you suggest would simply lead to even further policy immobility (as evidenced by the laughable debt ceiling fiasco).
I think you suggestion assumes the premise that disparate parties will cooperate to get the best possible outcome…but nothing I’ve seen of US politics to date indicates that even members of the same party can manage that, let alone multi-partisanship.
The premise of your argument is that the more representational the parliament is the better, and from an esoteric standpoint that’s true..but in terms of delivering policy outcomes and actually running the country (ultimately the role of Government, aspirational standards notwithstanding) I’d argue that the more plurality of opinion the less likely of any consensus.
The EU is currently in crisis because the representatives of each country (‘cos everyone needs a say!) has rendered them unable to actually do anything at all other than sit around arguing about what to do.
Um…so can I come and hang out with Roseanne now? That’s all I really want :P
To answer your last question first, no you may not hang out with Roseanne. Her boyfriend is very protective, and they live in the middle of nowhere so they can get away.
You may however, be a Minister on her Cabinet. I am the secretary (one of two). And though you may not understand how this works, and though you may not even be a US citizen…if you (or anyone) wishes to be on the Cabinet, I have the vote to elect you to any of the 60 ministries. We’re always trying to get better and better people.
Additionally, I can elect your name as International Contact for the country of Australia (or any other country, if you wish), and any US friends you have can also be elected, say to ambassador to Australia, Israel or any other country.
Click on this link to see our foreign ministry, I am the web page designer and also one of the five executives along with Roseanne:
Hmmm, I do understand it.
I just don’t agree with it unless it includes compulsory voting, there’s a world of difference :P
I think our system is better than the current US system and what you’re proposing, and I think the success of our successive Governments (and, indeed, Australia as a whole) reflects this.
Not only would I not support any attempt to bring such reform to Australia, I would actively campaign against it.
We’re seeing in Australia what happens when you give parties with an incredibly small share of the vote a ‘seat at the table’ and it aint pretty (depending on your political stripes I suppose, but given the Government’s support has plunged to less than 30%, it appears my countrymen and I are in agreement). It is also deeply offensive and grating to the overwhelming majority of citizens who, despite having voted overwhelmingly for one political agenda, are forced to submit to another.
Though having said that, given the state of play in the USA, I’m inclined to think that any sort of reform is worth a go.
I am not a voting reform activist. Our system works fine already, better than fine.
We’re one of the most economically sound countries in the world and we have a level of social cohesion that I can only imagine is a source of envy to people in the USA and around the world.
Democracy, like it or not, is the very definition of majority rule.
I’d suggest that pandering to minority opinion merely risks pandering to extremist views that the majority of citizens quite rightly reject.
If we are to assume that, for the most part, people are reasonable and rational…it therefore follows that a reasonable and rational idea (surely the only basis for good policy) will appeal to the majority of people.
If we assume that the majority of people are not reasonable and rational, well then democracy is not only without merit but indeed dangerous.
Minority rule is not democracy. Nor, in my opinion (and let’s be real, this is a matter of opinion on both our parts and to suggest that any idea is ‘correct’ is simply hubris) can one apply a ‘one size fits all’ to political systems…what’s appropriate here may not be appropriate in the USA and vice versa.
Whilst it’s true that democracy may, at times, ride roughshod over the views of the minority…I don’t have an issue with that.
Sometimes ideas are held by the minority simply because they’re not particularly good ideas.
Ultimately, without compulsory voting…there can be no democracy and that is, in my mind, where your efforts should be directed.
A ‘dual winner’ district that still only attracts a total voter turnout of 40% of the population is not at all representative and to suggest that it is simply flies in the face of everything we know of mathematics and statistical sampling.
I’ve always argued that voluntary voting merely attracts the extremists who are willing to make the effort to go to the ballot box, and I’d respectfully suggest that America is the perfect example of why that doesn’t work.
If you made compulsory voting a central tenet of your plan, in combination with your suggestion for multi-winner districts, that I would indeed support and promote (for America at least).
Given our current political state we essentially have a Federally elected ‘multi winner’ Government…people in Australia have always had the option to elect people according to such a formulae…we have simply chosen not to (for the most part, other than the current ‘multi-winner’ coalition…I think the last time it happened was 1948…ish).
“If you made compulsory voting a central tenet of your plan, in combination with your suggestion for multi-winner districts, that I would indeed support and promote (for America at least).”
Sounds good, I’d like to make compulsory voting a central tenet of my plan. Unfortunately, it’s not all that easy.
The best way to do that would be to write up a rule, and have the rule approved by the ruling coalition, the biggest block of MPs who approved the 36 rules.
Hon Puck, if you have time, please look at the rules. I’m not that great of a writer. So, if you can write the rule, and suggest improved writings for any of the 36 rules, please post them here.
Once you or I writes the proposed rule, I’ll start contacting the ruling coalition about getting it approved.
It might be known as “rule 37”, once approved.
Here are the current rules:
Thanks in advance for your idea, I’ll check back here to see if one of us can come up with some wording for the proposed compulsory voting rule #37.
Puck’s a pragmatist.
Puck has viewed the rules.
He likes them not.
I rather suspect any attempt at electoral reform in the USA is akin to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
Roseanne for Queen?
Such a frivolous attitude towards what is a serious issue cheapens the efforts of everyone involved.
I have spoken.
Hon Puck, thank you for your idea, your time and your consideration, especially your idea for compulsory voting.
The proposed compulsory voting rule can also be implemented in two areas that I forgot to mention, in case you or anyone changes their mind and wants to write the proposal soon.
On the 8th USA Parliament’s “Vote Here” tab, there are two links to eballots for rules, one at the top of the page and one at the bottom:
The one towards the top is the “Direct Democracy Executive Eballot (DD)”, which elects the Planks of the Platform executive (e)ballot under rule #36.
The 2nd link towards the bottom of the web page, is the eballot for internal votes, “Structure Eballot (MPs Guiding Internal Process)”.
In case Hon Puck (or anyone) changes their mind, the proposed rule can be added to either eballot, as soon as it is written.
I will post the creation of the proposed rule in this forum, once it’s written, since I believe this forum is a very good resource for ideas.
BTW good news, one person posted that the Occupy Wall Street folks like the USA Parliament, and plus that, we’ve added more than 30 of our 120 proposed planks are from their writers, and all their known ideas are also being considered for the DD eballot. But so far, nobody has voted on our DD eballot, so either you or I can elect the proposed compulsory voting rule, if either of us writes the rule in, votes by November 6th, 2011, and if we’re the only voters.
Each plank has to receive tics from 50% plus one vote of the total number of voters, no matter how large or small the number of voters happens to be, so when only one voter votes, all their tics are approved. When two voters vote, only items where both voters awarded tics are approved.
NEWS FLASH, I just received an email from Hon PM Roseanne Barr [Green Tea], and she is suggesting to Hon MP Michael Moore’s [Independent], associate that they look at the USA Parliament, and they may call me tonight.
I will try to announce the new development here within the next day or two.
Some very good things are happening with the All Party System (and independents). This could help us launch pretty well in 2012.
BTW, having Hon Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] being our Queen, has really helped us expand. Since she nominated 60 to 75 new members to the Cabinet (which we had to expand from 12 to 60 because of her) we’ve expanded by five times, and we’ve attracted many new members including Hollywood Stars.
The ruling coalition that approved the set of 36 rules, understands that the parliament’s Queen is elected, and not anointed by divine right.
She’s accountable to the votes of the ruling coalition, and we can change our mind anytime and UN-elect her, and all five Princesses and Royalty staff too.
The Queen title is just a title (we could have called here “chief dog catcher”).
The parliament’s page links to her blog from the word Queen on the parliament’s web page. She pays for the programmer for the blog, and that’s the main way we benefit. That way, we don’t have to hire a programmer for our free speech blogs.
Your problem is that you think attracting “Hollywood Stars” (I’m repressing a shudder) is in any a positive. Actors are hardly known for their minds. To divest power to someone for financial benefit is an affront to liberty and stabs at the very heart of the democracy of which we are so rightly proud.
Call me when you get a nobel prize winner. THAT’S impressive.
Three actors/actresses trumps one nobel prize winner … yeah, even B.O. with the Nobel Peace.
The Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system in Libya would’ve been far better than what any US administration, Hillary or B.O., ever offered Libyans, Afghans and Iraqis. At a much lower cost to us.
When it comes to peace, they just don’t have it, Nobel et al.
You’d need at least ten stars, including George Clooney, to top even one of the lame Nobel Prize winners (like, literature or something).
And they’d wanna be some A graders too…
I would love that (having at least ten stars…including George Cloony) under the 8th USA Parliament’s team system for U.S. president. Let’s get them all on our team, Nobel literature winners and straight A students too.
This is a more peaceful, more orderly and more nurturing plan for countries than the plan to use bombs and violence to settle conflicts.
Therefore, Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] is a better candidate for president than at least one Nobel Peace Prize winner, the USA’s president, because she supports the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system. Not only for the USA, but for Israel and for all countries and all election systems.
She is the probably an ignored Nobel winner, and the more qualified between the two, as long as she advocates this advanced way to peace.
Considering she nominated more than 60 names to the 8th USA Parliament’s Cabinet, I’d say she prefers peaceful solutions over war. She is after all, a strong proponent of peace.
Thank you for your interest, and thank you Heeb Media, LLC, I really liked this conversation and this blog too.
I wish we could do more, because we’re going too slow.
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
Vote Counting Minister
Go BarrOOgle 2012
“Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!”
I’ve just looked at the Republican presidential hopeful lineup and the Democratic Incumbent…
Roseanne for President it is then, it seems :P
Cool Puck, good news.
Be sure to let me know if/when you want to join the team. :) Just sign up on the parliament’s sign up tab, and I’ll edit your name in to any level/region you’d like. Click my name to the left to go to the main page.
The USA Parliament just got a “like” today on Jill Stein’s [Green-Rainbow] of Massachusetts. She’s running for US Prez with the Green Party.
And we’re holding our first debate next Wednesday. It’s a teleconference debate featuring presidential hopefuls Jim Burns [Libertarian], Tina Cook [Independent] and myself james Ogle [Free Parliamentary] in conjunction with the publisher of Freedom’s Phoenix dot com web site.
The 8th USA Parliament is now trying to organize our own debates, but few people understand the concept of the 125-way debate system. And we’re practicing for next year, when we go to the 1250-way debate system.
I’m running too, on the Libertarian ticket, on the “opposite gender #1” strategy. If people like my plan, I’ll “stand down” and try to get the #2 spot with a female presidential ticket…probably/hopefully Honorable Roseanne Barr [Green Tea].
“Go BarrOOgle 2012”
She knows the plan, we’re trying to unite all parties, independents, voters and non voters under a single parliamentary ballot. She’s trying to unite the Green and Tea Parties, and I’m trying to unite the Constitution, Libertarian and American Independent Parties.
Hope everyone likes it, but we’re going too slow.
BTW, you don’t have to be a US citizen to participate. If/when you were to be elected our president and your name wasn’t actually born in the US, then we’d just eliminate your name and the next highest ranked name would automatically take you place.
There are many different levels you and everyone can engage our system, in case you decide to. Again, we welcome all people to all levels/regions, because we don’t have enough people involved yet.
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!”
So, wait, I know I’m late to the party here… but isn’t Roseanne Barr like the Flying Spaghetti Monster of religion and politics? Like… she claims to be serious but it’s really just a specious sounding logic that we all know thinly veils some kind of weird sense of humor.
Obviously the woman is on here pretending to be some guy named James Ogle which, besides being completely contrary to her stated goal of bringing the matriarchy to the forefront of political power, is completely nuts and disconnected from reality. I mean, doesn’t she have anything better to do than tweet her insanity on a barely relevant, WordPress driven screed-rag?
She’s like most other celebrities … a complete train wreck. Anyone who takes her seriously needs their head examined and that includes those that enable and empower her insanity by getting hot under the collar whenever she opens her mouth to vomit her bullshit in public.
The only reason to get upset at this woman isn’t because anything she says has any significant, objective merit or malignancy to the world. The reason to get upset is the same reason we (the 99%) should get upset whenever ANY media personality or celebrity says ANYTHING regarding politics – because they invariably know next to nothing about the issues, facts or laws in question yet have a resonant megaphone in which to spew their douchebaggery that far exceeds the average and sensible person’s ability to be heard.
Like I always say, “Celebrities should be banned from speaking about politics or religion. They know just enough to be dangerous but have enough influence to be deadly.”
Just pat Roseanne/James on the head like the unhinged village idiot that she is and send her on her way.
David K from Philly
Flying Spaghetti Monster Party … pretty funny, David K. We need that, and we need you on our team.
You really should join with us and bring your material.
We’re going from 99% plus 100 votes to 99.9% plus 1000 votes next year, kicking off on 1/1/2012 and since we don’t have enough good people we could really use you. And your writer too.
Please do stay in touch. This is one of the few free speech forums we both like and a place for the FSMP to organize and maybe even become an opposition voting bloc, a swing vote or something.
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!”
Sorry, James. I appreciate the compliments, but, unlike Roseanne/yourself I do take politics seriously. I meant it when I said, “Celebrities should be banned from speaking about politics or religion. They know just enough to be dangerous but have enough influence to be deadly.”
I’m happy to watch their films and laugh at the endearing humiliations they face surrounding their personal lives. I’m willing to contribute to the millions and billions of dollars each year that makes them part of the wealthy 1% and able to buy expensive houses, cars, cream cheese and bagels.
What I’m not willing to do is let them and her (and, by proxy, you) contribute the asinine conjecture and outrageously narcissistic personality cults which are endemic in all celebrity activists and politicos.
But, don’t feel bad, I feel the same way about all rich people who use their wealth and influence to plutocratically take over American politics.
Just like all humans, Thomas Jefferson was a flawed individual. It’s obvious he was because he forgot something in his Danbury Baptist Association letter. It should have read, “…separation between church, state… and treasury.”
David K from Philly