Go Register to Vote
Jeff Alworth
A lotta people come up to me and say, "Gee, Jeff, you're a famous and influential blogger, and I can see how effortlessly you shape opinion in this state, but what can I do to help elect John Kerry?" (I paraphrase.) Wherupon I tilt my head and rub my chin sagaciously and offer this shockingly simple advice:
I just got an email from Gordon Smith urging me to capitalize on the "excitement" of the Republican National Convention. Says the Senator: "Thousands of Oregonians are unregistered to vote - these are your friends, your family members, and your co-workers. It is critical that we register voters across America, and I strongly encourage you to be the difference in this election."
I couldn't agree more.
If you're not registered, time is running out. If you are registered, think about your friends, family, or co-workers. Print out the form (available here) and fill it out wth them. The election comes down to simple math: aristocracy vs. regular citizens. As long as the regular citizens don't vote, the aristocracy calls the shots.
Don't think it matters? President Bush is backed by a radical group of plutocrats and was elected by less than a quarter of the population in 2000. He's shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, benefitting a tiny minority. He invaded a country -- benefitting none. On every front, he pushed through legislation that future historians will regard as revolutionary. He has changed the country, radically, and the effect will last for decades. So for every groovester anarchist who refuses to vote because it "doesn't make a difference," I offer you example A: George W. Bush. His organized aristocracy is enough to defeat the will of the masses, and he accomplished it at the ballot boxes.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 8, '04
One voter in Florida might not have made a difference in 2000, but the election was so close that the seniors in two large Florida high schools, had they registered and voted, would probably have produced a clear winner of the Florida election. To any readers who are high school students in Florida, that's two -- just two -- high schools, yours and one other.
Sep 8, '04
Except the Iraqis, of course. But they don't matter, do they? Jeff, this is a bullshit statement. Say the cost outweighed the benefit if you must, but this kind of rhetoric is not only flat wrong but counterproductive for you -- it is transparent to all but the most rabid partisans, and highlights your candidate's vacillating position on Iraq.
How Robespierre-esque of you. Is this 1797?
4:15 p.m.
Sep 8, '04
Brett,
Whether the war has benefitted the Iraqis depends on, I guess, which Iraqis we're talking about. But when I read the news, I find it hard to see an argument supporting the notion that they're better off now--in the brutal chaos of reconstruction--than they were under Saddam. If this brutality were leading to a democratic government, that would be one thing, but with the Sadrs, the dead-enders, the Kurds, the moderate Shia, the secularists all fighting it out, that seems like a slim dream indeed. Allawi is more likely to become a new Saddam--bringing forced calm and constrained brutality back.
As for the aristocracy of GW Bush, this really isn't in dispute, is it? I mean, Bush himself doesn't dispute it--I find it hard to believe you do.
(Recall the famous clip: "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite -- I call you my base.")
Sep 8, '04
I find it hard to believe that someone could make the argument that a nation is better off with a murderous tyrant in power than it is with the ability to determine its own fate. Yet that's what you're arguing. The Iraqi people are now in charge of their country -- that's democracy. Elections have been held in almost every area of the country. That's democracy. Iraqis control their own government. Yes, it's still violent, yes, there is basically a civil war going on, but that, tragic as it's been, is an inevitable part of the formation of a new society. Religious and ethnic tensions have been suppressed for more than 30 years. It's not surprising that there is strife in the transition from a totalitarian, repressive government to a free society. But the transition is being made. The argument that at least Saddam made the trains run on time is repulsive.
I quote Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Sep 8, '04
In this past Sunday's Oregonian, there was an article tucked away about newly formed radio talk shows which are free to rant and rave about whatever the people have on their minds. Consistently, Iraqis across their country are complaining to American officials about power, water, and garbage service...or the lack thereof. Power and water servie are unreliable at best, and waste treatment services are nonexistent. Garbage has been piling up for months on the streets. When one "government" official allowed callers to question him uncensored on why garbage collection hadn't resumed since the fall of Saddam, the offical response was that garbage bags will be handed out by the thousands to Iraqis. No mention of actually PICKING UP the garbage.
7:22 a.m.
Sep 9, '04
Brett, ironic that you used that Montoya quote--it exactly refutes your notion of Iraqi "Democracy." You need to do a lot more than assign a name to establish a democracy. Even by the most generous definition, Iraq is very far from a functioning democracy. And you unwittingly identify exactly the yardstick by which we measure that definition: determining their own fate. As long as the country is plunged in civil war--as you grant--the country's fate is VERY MUCH undetermined. That's pretty much the definition of civil war.
Sep 9, '04
Are there no Americans that complain about their power, water, or garbage service?
What would have happened to these callers under Saddam?
This is FREEDOM. The freedom to complain about your government is the most important right we have. That is a right that Iraqis now have, thanks to us.
Of course it is. It's a year out of more than 30 years of despotism. Did you expect it to turn into Disneyland overnight? Why wouldn't it take time to turn it into a functioning society?
That's exactly what I said. The point is that Iraqis will make the determination of what their state will eventually look like. It's not going to be an American-style democracy; why would it? It's going to be something new -- that's the point.
What none of you address is the alternative to the Iraq war, namely leaving Saddam in power. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi. Are you telling me you would prefer the orderly tyranny of Saddam?
Sep 10, '04
Brett, fortunately, I am not an Iraqi citizen, but as an American, my answer to your question would have to be yes. Which is more important? Seeking out the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11, or creating democracy for the Iraqi people?
Resources were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, when there was no immediate reason to go into Iraq and when the situation in Afghanistan was far from resolved. The U.S. does not have the resources to overthrow every oppressive leader and establish democratic governments all around the world.
Bush has lost any credibility he may have had on the "war on terror" when he decided to invade Iraq. (Though I don't think he had any to begin with.)