Hi Nancy

I am equivocal about our compulsory voting structure.( You get fined if you don’t vote)  It seems to me a funny notion that by forcing everyone to vote you achieve something desirable as once they are in the booth they can do what they like. From my perspective it is desirable that the marginalised have a but of an encouragement to go to the booths as those of use with a comfortable life should be kept in check but the reasoning still seems a bit wayward. Anyway I hope things turn out well for you all - and we well know that means  for all the rest of us too. We go to the polls on 2 July to decide between two parties between which you could not insert a cigarette paper on policies.

cheers Pete

On 12 Jun 2016, at 2:31 am, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Pete,

"Taken aback" is an understatement for what we feel. (The "we" is obviously not his supporters, but it seems to include just about all of the press now as well as anyone who actually considers what he is saying.) He is dangerous.

As for voting, I'm with E. M. Forster: "Two cheers for democracy"--and two cheers for voting. There isn't any other way to get leaders who are not authoritarians--even if the people do also vote wrong sometimes.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Of course that was the year Dizzy Gillespie ran - you could have had duke Ellington as Secretary of State and the course of history as they say.

Obligatory in Australia - preposterous notion that it is

We are mostly a bit taken aback by D Trump by the way

Cheers Pete

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Jun 2016, at 8:22 am, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For the record: The last time I voted was in 1964. I won't vote this time either.
> Carrol
> See <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/27/hillary-clinton-progressive-values-black-voters-lesser-evil-election-2016>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rickard A. Parker
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 3:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Was T. S. Eliot a Key to Hillary’s Success?
> So first I find out Obama wrote letters about The Waste Land to his girlfriend. Then I find out that Kerry would recite Prufrock from memory. And now there is this on Hillary Clinton:
> "Was T. S. Eliot a Key to Hillary’s Success?"
> By Robin Bates | Published: June 8, 2016
> Better Living Through Beowulf
> http://betterlivingthroughbeowulf.com/t-s-eliot-a-key-to-hillarys-success/
> -------------------------
> Part of the webpage says:
> Now to “East Coker.” The first stanza of Part V provided the epigraph of Clinton’s Wellesley thesis on activist Saul Alinsky, and she referenced it again in her Wellesley commencement speech. The poem is about Eliot’s frustration that language continually lets him down in the welter of emotions. “Each venture,” he writes,
> Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate With shabby equipment always deteriorating In the general mess of imprecision of feeling, Undisciplined squads of emotion.
> -------------------------
> The webpage links "Wellesley thesis on activist Saul Alinsky" to:
>   http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/documents/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf
> And "Wellesley commencement speech" links to:
>   http://www.wellesley.edu/events/commencement/archives/1969commencement/studentspeech