PDA

View Full Version : Satire or Seriousness - Columbia Genious says 'don't vote'


Baby Lee
11-16-2006, 04:27 PM
unless you're smart like me

Linky (www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/11/03/Opinion/Please.Dont.Vote-2437317.shtml?sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com)
Voting does not make a difference, and most people shouldn't do it.

Before you ram your fist through a wall in rage, let me stress that I am not saying there are no reasons to vote. Specifically, there are two. (I'll get to them later, just so you'll have something to look forward to in life.) In general, however, the goal of any conscientious Columbia student ought to be keeping everyone else away from the polls.

We all know that the public at large is stupid, just as we all think of ourselves as the rare exception to that stupidity, but in America the problem reaches epic proportions. Just consider that Arrested Development lasted only three seasons, whereas Survivor is still in the top 10 in the Nielsen Ratings even though it's still just idiots sweating in foreign lands, except now with racism. Politically, this stupid public's decision-making resulted in President George W. Bush's winning of a majority vote after one of the worst terms in American history, with the exception of his second. Some might argue that Sen. John Kerry was a pathetic alternative, and they are of course correct, but the people nonetheless chose guaranteed incompetence over merely likely incompetence. Letting Americans choose their own leaders is like allowing a 4-year-old to choose his religion except that, with the elections, it's an entire nation going straight to hell.

The goal of Columbia students, then, should be to prevent as many people as possible from ever reaching the polls. This is why I always cringe when I see something like Rock the Vote. Anyone watching enough MTV to be persuaded by it has already proven that he can't even choose good TV shows or music. We don't want this person in any way affecting national politics. The same holds true for anyone who would respond to Diddy's confusing death threats. Here we can follow the strategy that tobacco companies use when running ads about quitting smoking: let's just show old people voting, desperately trying to pretend it's cool.

Obviously that strategy won't work for older voters. As people age, they become more difficult to rouse into inaction. We can forget about keeping World War II veterans at home, for example, unless we hide their keys or something. For everyone else, we will need to convince them that their vote does not matter. This should be easy since it's absolutely true. Morons like to claim that every vote counts-that anybody might cast the deciding ballot. Actually, in any election, only one vote matters-all the others either cancel each other out or reinforce the one important one. If former Vice President Al Gore beats Bush 500,100 to 500,000, then 1 million people just neutralized each other, and 99 simply repeated what one important guy did. Sometimes, as with Bush versus Gore, even that guy doesn't matter.

Unfortunately, you can't always count on blatantly obvious truth to convince people. We may have to turn to the old cliche of mocking the choice of candidates. No matter how exposed we are to the reality of inevitably terrible options, they're still discouraging. In my congressional district back home, one of the candidates supports building a wall on the Mexican border and wants to divide Iraq into three regions and let the major ethnicities work things out with militias. And that's the Democrat. His opponents are a slightly less insane Republican and a Libertarian-clearly there are no right choices here. Knowing that you can pick only from these absolute failures of men is cripplingly depressing, which is exactly the kind of emotional abuse we need to keep people at home on the big day.

Every once in a while, of course, one decent candidate emerges. In New York, that man is gubernatorial contender Jimmy McMillan, a real person. Running on the platform "rent is too damn high" for the Rent Is Too Damn High Party, his campaign Web site, rentistoodamnhigh.org, is a masterpiece of political thought, especially the rap song that plays when you visit it, the lyrics to which are "ooo-ee" and "rent is too damn high." You might think he at least sounds focused, but the site covers a broad range of topics, including the time McMillan climbed the Brooklyn Bridge and warded off policemen with a "Rambo-style combat knife." It even touches on his disappointment with the war on terror, which he almost prevented by uncovering a plot involving "Al Quida" and some Orthodox Jews. "If someone would have only listened," he laments on the site. I have never been this excited about a political candidate.

This brings us to the two reasons you should vote. First, voting for a crazy knife-wielding conspiracy theorist would be funny. Second, someone has to try to counteract most of America. Columbia students generally know what's going on in the world and have the capacity for understanding it, legacy admissions excepted of course. We have an obligation to make as many votes useless as possible by neutralizing them with our own. If voting is truly a sacred duty, then we must keep it out of the hands of all these idiots, or at least send enough thinking people to the polls to silence those with whom we disagree.

This Tuesday, do your patriotic duty, and encourage as many people to stay home as possible. Then sneak out a window and vote while they're watching black people arm-wrestle white people on Survivor. We don't want to look back on high voter turnout and think what might have been if someone would have only listened.

J.D. Porter is a Columbia College junior majoring in English. The Lion's Roar runs alternate Fridays.

KCWolfman
11-16-2006, 04:45 PM
I don't think the guy has anything to worry about.

Rock the Vote works about as well as a snake oil driven perpetual motion engine.

Logical
11-16-2006, 04:55 PM
The fact that your vote really in all likelihood has no meaning has certainly crossed my mind. Still I vote.:shrug:

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-16-2006, 05:05 PM
I'm sure you're trying to pillory the "intellegensia" by posting this, but his assertions are largely spot on. So many people are persuaded by hackneyed political ads and catchphrases that it's hard to take them seriously as informed voters. A lot of people vote for specific and narrowed interests. There is a dearth of educated voters.

There is a reason why "What's the matter with Kansas" was called the year's most prescient political book, and a lot of it has to do with people voting against their own best interests in search of the false carrot of values. He may sound confrontational and arrogant, but that doesn't mean that his stance is wrong.

Baby Lee
11-16-2006, 05:14 PM
I'm sure you're trying to pillory the "intellegensia" by posting this, but his assertions are largely spot on. So many people are persuaded by hackneyed political ads and catchphrases that it's hard to take them seriously as informed voters. A lot of people vote for specific and narrowed interests. There is a dearth of educated voters.

There is a reason why "What's the matter with Kansas" was called the year's most prescient political book, and a lot of it has to do with people voting against their own best interests in search of the false carrot of values. He may sound confrontational and arrogant, but that doesn't mean that his stance is wrong.
And people say you have problems with democracy.

Adept Havelock
11-16-2006, 06:14 PM
And people say you have problems with democracy.

ROFL :clap:

I thought he was an egalitarian who just had a low opinion of the intelligence of common people, like cabbies.

BucEyedPea
11-16-2006, 06:17 PM
And people say you have problems with democracy.
Yeah well, ya' know, people in a democracy have voted for leaders whose policies have slaughtered them! It's just group agreement in a democracy.

Sorry to hear about Grandma's rape btw! :(

banyon
11-16-2006, 06:25 PM
I didn't know jettio went to Columbia.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-16-2006, 06:37 PM
And people say you have problems with democracy.

I don't have problems with democracy, I have problems with the way that this political system functions. There is a vast difference between the two. The American political system is not an axiomatic indicator for all democracies. In fact, it's a pretty perverted one. (What I find pretty damned ironic is your constant espousal of logic on this board, when your assertion here is the prima facie indicator of a hasty generalization.)

Why do you think that this country has such a disenfranchised voter base? Because very little of the American system has anything to do with an analysis of policy and much more with slander and spin. That creates three things: A misinformed voter base, A pessimistic voter base, and an apathetic general population.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-16-2006, 06:45 PM
Of course, you won't engage in a discourse with me, because I'm not a "civilized human being." Should I apologize because I don't buy into your trite and archaic explanations for social interia? Because I am one of the few I've seen on here who won't accept your drivel as emprical fact? Your job doesn't impress me, your misuse of logic doesn't impress me, and your faux defense of civilized discourse shouldn't impress anyone since you are always the first one to make a snarky and dismissive comment about anything that doesn't mesh with your belief system. (Do I make wiseassed comments from time to time, yes, but I also engage in a realistic debate with the non-retarded posters on this board. You seem to be auditioning for a cameo on "Entourage".

Baby Lee
11-16-2006, 06:57 PM
I don't have problems with democracy, I have problems with the way that this political system functions. There is a vast difference between the two.
Then say that the guy has some salient points about a misinformed populace, but is wrong about dissuading people from voting just because they're misinformed.
I too have qualms with people who vote for what largess they can get from the government, with no consideration for issues outside of which candidate is gonna enact legislation that puts $$$ in their own pocket, but I don't have an impulse to dissuade them from voting. I have an impulse to try to get them to broaden their analysis.
If you think someone's 'spot on' for advocating the suppression of the vote, you have a problem with democracy.

Baby Lee
11-16-2006, 06:58 PM
Of course, you won't engage in a discourse with me, because I'm not a "civilized human being." Should I apologize because I don't buy into your trite and archaic explanations for social interia? Because I am one of the few I've seen on here who won't accept your drivel as emprical fact? Your job doesn't impress me, your misuse of logic doesn't impress me, and your faux defense of civilized discourse shouldn't impress anyone since you are always the first one to make a snarky and dismissive comment about anything that doesn't mesh with your belief system. (Do I make wiseassed comments from time to time, yes, but I also engage in a realistic debate with the non-retarded posters on this board. You seem to be auditioning for a cameo on "Entourage".
No!! I will not MAKE OUT WITH YOU!!

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-16-2006, 07:00 PM
No!! I will not MAKE OUT WITH YOU!!

You called the shit poop.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-16-2006, 07:12 PM
Then say that the guy has some salient points about a misinformed populace, but is wrong about dissuading people from voting just because they're misinformed.
I too have qualms with people who vote for what largess they can get from the government, with no consideration for issues outside of which candidate is gonna enact legislation that puts $$$ in their own pocket, but I don't have an impulse to dissuade them from voting. I have an impulse to try to get them to broaden their analysis.
If you think someone's 'spot on' for advocating the suppression of the vote, you have a problem with democracy.

You need to quit trying to play the 'gotcha' game with me at every impasse. However, let's entertain it for this instant:

His stance and his assertions (which I'm guessing are the passages from my post that you find objectionable)

The assertions that I am referring to here are that most voters don't know that much about the candidates they vote for, and many of them vote for candidates despite the fact that said candidate actually promotes a platform that is against their best interests.

The stance is an echoing of this assertion, not his claim that we enact a nouveau Jim Crow for dumb people. I can see how the wording could cause a misinterpretation, but perhaps instead of trying to paint me as da debbil all the time, you give credence to my belief structure, which is fairly well lined out on here and ostensibly not in support of the suppression of individual rights. (ironically, your first replying post itself is indicative of the way that politics functions now---"See....'Hamas' hates freedom")

Honestly, it would be nice to inform the voters, but you must ask yourself this:

How many of them really want to be informed?
How many of them will actually soak up said information?

In lieu of that, I'm not going to be proactive in suppressing a vote, but it's also ethically reprehensible to try and get someone to vote just because you think they'll vote like you (which is not a characterization of your stance, but another problem with the "get out the base" and "rock the vote" campaigns). That's why I don't pressure my wife, a disenfranchised-voter hereself, to participate. However, I do think that it is important to criticize the uninformed choices of those who do decide to participate, as they are the "known known" as Rummy would say.

KCWolfman
11-17-2006, 07:30 AM
I don't have problems with democracy, I have problems with the way that this political system functions. There is a vast difference between the two. The American political system is not an axiomatic indicator for all democracies. In fact, it's a pretty perverted one. (What I find pretty damned ironic is your constant espousal of logic on this board, when your assertion here is the prima facie indicator of a hasty generalization.)

Why do you think that this country has such a disenfranchised voter base? Because very little of the American system has anything to do with an analysis of policy and much more with slander and spin. That creates three things: A misinformed voter base, A pessimistic voter base, and an apathetic general population.
And a bunch of retards who can name all American Idol contestants but still don't know the name of their own US Congressional Representative.

Baby Lee
11-17-2006, 09:10 AM
You need to quit trying to play the 'gotcha' game with me at every impasse.
Were you so forgiving when Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond at his 100th B-day?
It was pretty clear that Trent wasn't saying 'it'd be great if we were still a Jim Crow nation' when he praised Strom, he was just being nice to an old man on his b-day, but people played 'gotcha' with glee due to his poor choice of words.
It's the peril of generally praising someone with whacked out views.
And that's what you did here. The guy's central premise is that stupid people should be dissuaded from voting and you said his was 'spot on.' It's not up to me to parse that he was only 'spot on' about this or that little nugget. It's up to you to say "this is a good observation, but I don't support that."

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-17-2006, 04:34 PM
Were you so forgiving when Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond at his 100th B-day?
It was pretty clear that Trent wasn't saying 'it'd be great if we were still a Jim Crow nation' when he praised Strom, he was just being nice to an old man on his b-day, but people played 'gotcha' with glee due to his poor choice of words.
It's the peril of generally praising someone with whacked out views.
And that's what you did here. The guy's central premise is that stupid people should be dissuaded from voting and you said his was 'spot on.' It's not up to me to parse that he was only 'spot on' about this or that little nugget. It's up to you to say "this is a good observation, but I don't support that."

There are a lot of things to dislike about Trent Lott that far outweigh his slip-up for the former Senator/rapist.

listopencil
11-19-2006, 12:43 AM
It's sarcasm, and a fine example of it. Very entertaining.