You want to know why the youth don’t vote? Because they know it’s a sham.
1. The electoral college has prevented and, unless I move to a different state, will probably always prevent my vote for president from counting.
2. Young people people have always known politics and government is for the Business, not for the People. This is one reason why Nader appeals to many young voters yearning for change.
3. They have no faith in the voting process, particularly after Florida 2000. It does not build help matters if we go to a paperless trail using Diebold voting machines and the chairman and CEO of Diebold has a letter sent out to raise funds for Bush with the ominous phrase: “I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” (free New York Times, free subscription required, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/politics/campaign/12vote.html?th).
4. Too people have tried to tell them WHO to vote for — their church, their parents — and too few have encouraged them to just VOTE.
5. A lack of awareness of how national policy can influence their lives. Young people have issues too, although they may seem trivial compared to Iraq and the economy. But they do into larger issues — access to M-rated video games is a First Amendment argument; intellectual property rights violations stand to put an entire generation in jail if fully prosecuted — which many argue shows problems with the current law. Senator John McCain is arguing, I believe, for cable channels on an a-la-carte basis instead bundled channels: cash-strapped young people who are only interested in watching a few channels might like that option if it very comes to fruition — I’m sure the cable companies will be fighting that one though. Many are concerned about civil rights, cyber issues, environmental concerns, and of course, the same things other voters care about — jobs, education, and health care. These are the folks who would be drafted if a volunteer force was not deemed sufficient; wouldn’t it be a shame if they didn’t even bother to show up at the polls to tell their politicians how they felt about mandatory service?
It’s late, very late, and there’s so many more reasons. Basically, I’m just really irritated at the “we’ll deliver Ohio for you” from the head of Diebold. I’ve seen how easy it is to hack that machine on TechTV. How I love my cable.
On May 5, 2004 · Comments Off
On today’s All Things Considered, Ken Adelman contended that, because George W. Bush has done policy that represents boldness and change, he should be considered a progressive, whereas because Kerry supports a more cautious, internationalist approach, he should be considered a conservative.
As examples, Adelman mentions Bush’s abandonment of the ABM treaty (a treaty he, without qualification, deems “bad”) and the current administration’s “bold” policy of preemptive warfare.
There’s a bit of verbal bait-and-switch going on here, of course, and not just with the obvious “progressive” vs. “conservative” labels. Adelman boldly and preemptively commits the fallacy of equivocation by calling “change” “progress.” Change just means something different; progress is teleological: it moves toward something new and better.
I agree, however, that Bush’s policies are not conservative. They certainly don’t conserve the good ol’ American values of peacemaking and fair-dealing. They don’t conserve what little goodwill we have managed to develop with the rest of the world since the end of the Cold War.
In fact, Bush’s policies are deeply retrograde. Along with his 12th Century theology, Bush’s policy of preemption harkens back to the 19th Century and that “splendid little war” we had with the Spanish. His Anti-anti-ABM position is something more like America circa 1954, when Cold War paranoia was standard operating procedure. Only his “go-it-alone” attitude toward waging war seems unprecedented; with the possible exception of the Spanish-American war, we’ve always gone out of our way to develop a set of allies and a darn good reason before sending our fresh young soldiers off to die in major conflicts.
This is progress?
On May 1, 2004 · Comments Off
Courage
I say this so you do not become discouraged:
the TV says a football player turned
soldier has died in Iraq. But why,
They ask, could he give up such recompense?
Later, the TV says another athlete may not be convicted
of rape since his victim was too much the slut.
These are our heroes. I say
this so you do not become
too encouraged: overconfidence will kill
you. The TV says a woman is on trial
for killing her bullet-headed husband.
She will be convicted. Their bed is reconstructed
in the courtroom to be judged: is this?
Is this the bed? She is blond and she cries.
Therefore she must be guilty. (Does she float like a duck?)
This is what falls
when the pedestal collapses and those who “worship”
beneath die: the goddess must be eaten. I say this
so you do not become too couraged: the TV says
a new movie features a black man who kills
because the little, white, rich, blond girl he is hired
to protect is killed and raped. Black man kills because
white girl dies. They interview the white actress who plays
the white girl in the movie. In real life she is too young
to even see the movie she stars in, the movie she plugs.
In another movie, The Bride kills because she loses
her man. Her man.
That makes it ok. She too is white and blond.
This lasts for two movies, actually, so she is obviously
hysterical. Too emotional. Because in the third movie
the daughter of the woman she kills, kills her.
The Bride is guilty.
She is too emotional without her man.
She too must die. I say this.
You have heard, but I say this.