True, Joel - in fact - what replaced it on later pressings was a much better track!

The CD was pretty funny - focusing on "Cop Killer" missed the bigger picture of it all.

Mike Thanks so much! You're a sweetheart!  My Grandma was the best, so I have a soft spot for grandmas.

My son won't let me watch Cannibal Holocaust, it's so funny, he and his friends  were talking about it one day and I said I had never seen it and I thought I might watch it, he got all serious and said it wasn' fit for a mom to see. Maybe they need to make a new rating TBFM, "Too Bad for Moms". I wish they would have put that rating on "Santa Clause 3" I could have saved 14 bucks. :0)

erm, I think I agree with that rating, Jodi!!  The movie is pretty grim!

And if he ever mentions anything about "2 girls, 1 cup", just leave the room.

Trust me.

Full disclosure: Like Mike O'Brien, I have also vote against candidates more than for them. Like him, I couldn't stand Clinton(1992 was my first election) or Gore, either(and I wish Lieberman had been at the top of the ticket in 2000)..and I REALLY couldn't stand 'Mr. Ed Kerry', and his Bride of Frankenstein!

Unlike him, I'm a Republican..because I feel that 'holding my nose' and voting accomplishes nothing, staying home and voting for no one accomplishes nothing...and a vote for any so-called 'third party', as third parties are currently constituted, accomplishes less than nothing, and, especially if it's a vote for Ralph Nader, is the equivalent of a circle-jerk in the voting booth. I dislike the idea of having to vote for 'the lesser of two assholes', but, as of November 2000 and November 2004, I believed Bush was less of one than either of his opponents in those elections. Since then? Well, it's a good thing the Constitution limits terms.

I could vote Democrat someday, if they'd ever nominate somebody that I feel like I could tolerate seeing in the news every day for four years. Almost felt like that with Obama, but I sensed a change in him, a bit more...not 'arrogance', but more of a 'I'm too cool for the room' attitude, even before all that Rev. Wright crap. Dealing with that seems to have reminded him not to count his chickens before they come home to roost...uh, sorry, I mean, hatch.

I also think that voting for change simply for the sake of change, rather than on a lot of specifics, is the wrong way to go. I still like him better than Hillary, but that alone isn't enough for me to switch.

John Mccain is more of a moderate Republican, and I feel I'm closer to him on certain issues than I am to, say, Huckabee, or anyone else who was in the race. I liked some of Mccain's ideas about submitting to a 'Question Time' in Congress. It's so crazy, it could actually work, if anybody would actually agree to it!

Personally, if it doesn't work out for Obama this year, I'd like him to rethink his position and run again. I don't want to totally write the guy off, but I'd like him to do a bit more in the Senate and see if he can make a stonger case than 'If I don't get in, it's like a third term of Bush'. The GOP overdid campaigning against a 'third term of Clinton' in both 2000 and 2008, and that's the sort of strategy I wish both sides would abandon.

As for Michelle Obama...wake me when she runs for office.

In my country we often use the quote "the best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire, apparently)

In political history, change has happened incrementally, and not voting because no candidate (or party) is perfect, leaves you powerless. And even if there is a small party that more accurately reflects your political views, if there is no realistic chance of them winning it may be better to vote "second best".

In the case of  the Bush/Gore/Nader election, voting for Gore might have benefitted the Nader voters more than voting for Nader did.

The american system is set up to favor the two major parties, especially in the electoral college (we had that system 100 years ago, and some politicians want that back. It should surprise no-one that they're from a major party.) 

This makes the choices more "shapeless" than they are in systems that favor the inclusion of smaller parties. There, parties can divide along a limited set of issues, making it possible to get a fairly clear sense of what to expect. Most of the time. Not that it isn't problematic, as in some countries it makes it difficult to maintain a continuity of government due to the divisiveness between many small parties.

In our country we have (in parliament)

Communists (about 1 seat in 165 every other term)
Social Democratic Left (Separated from Labor because they're Anti-Nato and are pushing for more welfare, more taxes etc.) Pushing hard for "fixing" aspects of the constitution such as the church and state issue, instituing a republic instead of a monarchy etc. They also have a lot of Christian Socialists. (So do Labor, but there's a stronger materialist faction in Labor)  
Social Democrat Labor (Major party for most of the Post War era) Strongly in favor of an expansionist mixed economy. Have gradually embraced a more "capitalist" approach to socialism and has a very lukewarm commitment to divisive issues like separation of church and state. Have historical roots in the Labor Unions, and though many leading politicians are "broilers" (professional politicians) a lot are from Unions.
Center Party. Also known as the Farmer's Party. Very conservative on social and constituional issues, somewhat to the right of Labor on economic policies, though they heavily favor farm subsidies and other "regional" issues (many parties agree on the political objective of moving new jobs to outlying regions rather than concentrating them in the big cities. )
Christian Democrats. Social conservatives, favoring big government on issues like hospitals, schools (especially school prayer and christian instruction),  kindergarten and government child support grants (evey family gets a few hundred dollars a month for each child until they're 18. Directly from the government.)  But also favor tax breaks etc. Mostly concerned with family and values issues. Considered a conservative party and will agree to any tax break as long as their core issues are supported.
Left. (It's a conservative party despite the name)  Economic and social liberals. This means they want as little taxes and as little interference from the government as possible. On social issues, however, they have no problem with supporting gay marriage, legalized drugs (under specific conditions), they want better protected freedom of speech etc They see no place for government in people's private lives. They are also a "green" party.
Right. Economic liberals and social conservatives with a healthy mix of social moderates. Often seen, like Labor, as a very pragmatic party. They favor targeted tax breaks and privatization of government businesses.
The Progress Party (formerly the Anti-Tax Party) Fierce economic liberals and very socially conservative. Although the current leader is a woman, she is also the only highly placed woman in the party. Considered a very populist party, they are heavily anti-immigration, in favor of anti-blasphemy laws, anti-union, strongly opposed to limitations on businesses (up to and including established worker's rights.) and in favor of strongly reducing the welfare system (far beyond what other conservative parties propose).

A little bit for everybody. Now, if we had a two party system, all these parties would be reduced to 2 choices. And a lot of important political distinctions would vanish. You could vote for a party thinking you'd get a social conservative and get social liberals instead or vice versa. 

You might end up with that anyway, as a multi party system requires a lot of "horse trading", but at least it will mostly happen out in the open between political parties instead of within the party. Much easier to hold them accountable if they have to defend what they bargained away and what they bargained for.

Of course, this is based on my own preferences in terms of  political systems. Not a perfect system by any means.

Interesting points about the Norwegian system, though some friends of mine who live in countries with a wide variety of political parties have found some downsides.

Their points: A lot of the policies are formed in private after the election has ended. As political parties jockey for power and a place at the table a lot of deals are made to create a viable government made of many disparate opinions. Having that happen before the election seems to offer more of a voice to the people (though since politicians say one thing and do another that may not be much of a concern). The other main concern is that when a large portion of the country believes that they have to make a large change the compromises that have to be made to form a government do not lead to any kind of large change. Sometimes it is better to not make sweeping changes but having a system that is rigged in such a way that change is very difficult seems almost anti-democratic.

I never had a strong opinion on it until some of my leftist friends started advocating it in nearly every argument and I wondered why so I did some research. The reason they were so excited about the possibility became obvious when I did my research (in the library, I wasn't on line at the time): Having a large number of parties, combined with proportional representation, meant that left wing parties were not only much more likely to win the elections but also made it virtually impossible to move the country in any other direction even if a conservative party happened to win (since a large minority was the best possible outcome for those parties, and most other parties of any size were left, or center left, it made it very difficult for conservatives to form a coalition government that would actually push forward conservative policies). It tends to lead to a very stable direction for the country (very difficult for anybody to make large changes) while creating an unstable individual government. Incrementalists win the day in that system.

Great if that happens to be your kind of government. But not allowing those on the other side a shot because the system is weighted (and while my research is a few years old I never saw an example of a right wing party winning and then being able to implement any changes) it would seem to disenfranchise their vote. Why vote if you know even if you win the changes you want to see happen simply can't happen?

Good points, Steve. Not a big problem for me in practice, as I'm a leftie, but...

It does seem that our country's system, in practice, favors the Labor party especially. Possibly due to regional voting differences, or other parts of our system of apportioning seats. Still sucks for the conservatives, no matter why it happens.

Though to be fair, the two party system that preceded it excluded the Labor party entirely. Or divided the vote sufficiently as to greatly benefit the far right. Which is why socialists 100 years ago, instead of voting socialist, voted "Left". "Left" favored election reform to a more representational system that would allow for a greater number of small parties to participate. Y'know liberal ideals and all that. Once voting reform was accomplished, the socialists switched back to voting socialist and gained substantial parliamentary representation.

Which could not have been accomplished if they'd just kept on voting socialist. Which ties into my point of voting not for the best candidate (on the issues) , but the one who'll get the job done.