BURNINGBIRD
a node at the edge  


August 22, 2002
PoliticsVote the Blog, Baby

I am impressed with this renewed zeal to get out the vote. Off year elections in the US tend to be walkaways, with less than 50% of the people voting. Anything that gets people into the polls is a Good Thing. However, before we all pick a candidate that we're sure we can get elected (if we only pool ALL of our weblog votes), time for a little reality check: is the person we pick the person we really want?

There is one reason why the American government doesn't seem to represent the American people: time. We don't invest the time necessary to vote wisely, and after the elections, we don't invest the time to monitor our government carefully.

Not enough people exercise their priviledge to vote in this country, and because of this, those that are voted in don't necessarily represent the interests of all Americans. You (yes, you) can't bitch about the state of affairs in this country if you don't vote. And I don't want to hear, "But my vote doesn't make a difference...I can't control the government...they're all corrupt, anyway". Doesn't matter boys and girls: if you don't vote, you're part of the problem not the solution.

In some ways, though, what's worse than not voting is that when we do vote, we tend to vote based either on party or a single issue. Rather than look at each candidate individually and vote for whomever best represents our interests, we vote straight Republican, straight Democrat, or straight (some other party). Or we vote based on one issue, such as the issue of copyright law that has fired the weblogging world up with such reformational zeal.

As an example of single issue zeal, we sought out a candidate, Tara Grubb, who is an opponent to Howard Coble. We did this because of Coble's support of the infamous Berman-Coble bill. If we can elect Tara, we'll send a message to congress. We are Webloggers, hear us roar!

But what of Tara's support on other issues? What of Coble's? Is copyright law sufficient enough reason to elect one over the other? Are you willing to accept everything about a candidate, all the other issues they support or don't, because of copyright?

I have a set of issues that are important to me. They include our policies in the Middle East, our environmental policies, health care in the world, women's rights, fair trade, and so on. Copyright is in the list, but it's wa-a-y down.

I would be more interested in a candidate that promises to force Bush into keeping our pledge to the United Nations Population Fund. I would be more interested in a candidate that pushes Congress into passing the Treaty for the Rights of Women. Why? Because once we have a baseline, we can go after behavior such as the woman sentenced to being stoned to death in Nigeria. (And don't think the US will come off free from this treaty--we're not pure in this regard.)

I would be more interested in a candidate who would fight the current administration's abuse of war time powers and the so-called enemy combatant provision to deprive American citizen's their rights by law. I would be more interested in a candidate that didn't support the current administration's aggressive behavior in the Middle East, in particular Iraq (and soon to be Saudi Arabia and Iran, I'm sure).

I would support a candidate that forced our government to follow through on our Kyoto agreement, and that didn't seek to push our genectically altered corn and food on the rest of the world. I would support a candidate that sought to ensure our country treated fairly and honorably with other countries. I would support a candidate who sought to bring us back into the world that we are becoming increasingly alienated from.

If, after all of that, there was any room left, I would support a candidate that believed in a fair and equitable copyright policy.

(Speaking of weblogging and politics, we threw Tara into weblogging with no prior experience or exposure of either weblogging or the Internet, and then thrust the limelight on her before she has a chance to get a feel for all of this. And we're trying to help this woman?)


Posted by Bb at August 22, 2002 12:47 PM




Comments

"Buying a loaf of bread is a political act."

Yes, yes, Shelley, stir 'em up. There's nothing we foreigners would like to see more on our TV screens [though reception is poor in our bomb shelters] than Americans turning out to vote in decent numbers.

I mean, that's one thing that should be explained to the rest of the world. It's inexplicable to me. How do citizens of the world's largest democracy get by without even bothering to exercise their most basic duties, i.e. put up decent candidates for whom to vote and then cast their ballots? Especially in presidential elections. I know the arguments, but they don't wash. Anything would have been infinitely better than Bush and so therefore had to be voted in by a margin large enough to sway the crowd and beat the umpire.

More interesting at the moment, though, is the case of Amina Lawal. Why the hell shouldn't she be stoned? She did break the law. I blogged my own difficulties with this one on Monday. I'm afraid there are no easy answers. I mean, *you Americans* gas 'em, fry 'em, poison 'em or bomb them, whether they've done something to warrant it or not.

What's the answer? Check out Nigeria. Check out the body count where North meets South. We're talking hundreds of thousands over the decades. Kano had well over 200 people killed in a spate of inter-faith riots at the end of last year. Most aren't reported.

And what's so special about Amina? What about the slave trade, the sex trade, the body organ industry, and several minor wars over the past 3 decades in which more people died than were killed during WWII.

Isn't it just so fucking weird that the scale - the magnitude of the number - the rivers of blood and the montains of corpses clogging some of the largest rivers and lakes in the world, was not viewed in a halfway serious light. In the west, history is based on shit like this. WWII? Whose world? If the indifference to what is really going on here is so great, why do people give a damn about Amina Lawal?

Amina symbolizes something, but what is it? Our self-righteous impotence and wishy-washy angst or our do-it-our-way-or-else fervor and decisiveness?

I don't mean to lay this one on you specifically so if anybody else wants to take it up...

"I been wondrin'..."

Posted by: Mike Golby on August 23, 2002 02:57 AM

Wow. What a wonderfully provocative yet thoughtful reply.

Posted by: tomas on August 23, 2002 06:34 AM

But Mike, when you post this as a comment to one of my postings, you are 'laying this on me'.

People not voting I don't understand. So I can't help you there. And I've been very much against the death penalty in this country for many years, only strengthened by the recent releases of death row inmates erroneously convicted.

Why do I give a damn about Amina? Because she, and others like her, are people who we can work to save now.

When I finish my current writing deadline, I'll write a longer reply to this as a posting, but can't take the time to give your questions deserve at this moment. Perhaps others can.

Posted by: Shelley aka Bb on August 23, 2002 07:40 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?