OPINION & EDITORIAL
Letters to the Editor
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Register to vote ... early and often (March 1, 2004)
- Do not complain if you do not vote (November 5, 2002)
- Overreaction to voting audit threatens turnout at polls (October 11, 2005)
- Election date hurts voters (February 20, 2007)
- Photo ID legitimates votes (March 7, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
It’s pretty obvious that the media has a profound effect on the American public in swaying political decisions of some (mostly undecided) voters. But what about pop culture?
If we can get the exposure of the importance of voting out to the majority of 18-24-year-olds (by any means necessary), it’s better than nothing. Groups like the New Voters Project have done a wonderful job at emphasizing this point, with their slogan “Make Them Pay Attention to Us.” However, medians such as Rock the Vote, Choose or Lose, Vote or Die and even T-shirts such as “Vote, F*cker” or “Youth Have the Power” have done wonders for getting this message out as well.
I congratulate ASM and the University of Wisconsin for bringing Rock the Vote here to raise political awareness. I’d even go so far to thank them for bringing Michael Moore here as well. Because regardless of what you think of Moore’s beliefs, I truly saw the political spectrum of Madison at its finest when he spoke. There was a section of protesting College Republicans, adamant ISO members and Nader supporters passing out their information, and the crowd of Democrats, the overwhelming majority, serving as a nice barrier between the two.
Jordan Burghardt (jbburghardt@wisc.edu) UW-Madison junior, double majoring in political science and sociology
An open letter to Ralph Nader and his supporters
Dear Mr. Nader:
The upcoming presidential election is sure to be a close and bitter contest, with or without your participation. I am sure you are aware that in many key states, your participation in the 2000 contest may have pulled enough votes away from the Democratic ticket to cost the Dems a state or two.
I am a mostly liberal, absolutely proud American and I agree with you on many of the key issues that face Americans today. I am also aware of the fact that a third-party candidate has absolutely no chance of winning the presidential election; this year, four years from now or four years after that.
I have friends who voted for you in 2000. They did so because they felt there was little difference between the major candidates. They now express regret and admit that this was not true. To claim that there was little difference between the major candidates is ridiculous! To pretend that Gore would have used the same methods that Bush used to respond to 9/11 is absurd! It is an equally absurd claim this time around.
While you are busy making a valiant stand for less special-interest control in government, back in the real world all you are doing is helping the Republicans win another four years in the driver’s seat. Aren’t you an environmentalist? How many more environmental regulations will Bush roll back in the next four years? How many more impingements on our constitutional rights will he make? How many ultra right-wing judges will he appoint? How many preemptive unilateral invasions made under false pretenses? How much higher will he allow the debt to go in order to give another tax break to the rich? Doesn’t the thought of this make you sick? Can you and your supporters really sleep comfortably at night knowing that you played a role, perhaps a decisive role, in letting this happen? If after the election, you and your supporters are toasting a great moral victory by pulling 5 percent of the vote from the Democrats, the man laughing all the way to the White House will be none other than Dubya himself.
The Republicans have spent their own money and resources to get you on the ballot in the swing states. Doesn’t this speak volumes as to what your real role in this election will be?
Please, please don’t do this to me, to the environment, to our country. Don’t help give Bush the power to make four more years of bad decisions. Please do not run and do support John Kerry in his attempt to win back the White House from the Republicans.
Joshua Krauss (jlkrauss@wisc.edu)
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 8:36am):
I read the above open letter to Ralph Nader. Gosh, it sure is nice to see you liberals sooo divided for once. You sound pretty desperate. Not a cushy feeling at all, huh? Just like the frazzy-haired, pin-cushion-faced punk who strolled by me and some friends outside Witte Hall and smirked "Kerry's gonna kick Bush's ass! And poor Laura Bush with her fake titties and their slut-puppy daughters will have to move out of the White House. Too bad, so sad." She even flipped us off-or maybe she was just telling us her IQ.
How exactly do you liberals expect to win any votes for you candidate when you're behaving like a bunch of spoiled brats? Thank God I'm a Republican!
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 9:14am):
I think I dealt with that same punk-ass bitch too. Was it Monday when you encountered her? I had someone who looked just like that accost me outside the Memorial Library. Bitch asked me for a smoke, I gave her one and she walked away saying "Maybe you redneck assholes will die of cancer before the election and Bush will lose fuckin' big time!"
I'm a liberal myself, but holy shit! If losers like her manage to sway enough swing-voters toward Bush then maybe liberals' days here in Madison are numbered.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 10:23am):
This is in regards to the letter to Mr. Nader. I have been watching this upcoming election closely, and a popular motif on both sides is democracy. We are democratizing Afghanistan and Iraq, we believe in liberty and democracy for all Americans, etc. Yet in this great democracy, there is a push to eliminate the very core of democracy which is voting for who you believe in, and who you think will do the best job as president. In any other democracy they would laugh at the idea that one candidate should not run to let the other win. That is not the system works.
Also there are certainly profound ramifications for voting for Kerry. First of all, he is not liberal. He wants to put more troops into Iraq, and is even sizing up Iran. He has supported the continuation of Israeli terrorism on the Palestinian people, and most importantly is he refuses to talk about any corporate issues, has rejected universal health care, free higher education, and an increase in worker safety. And have you even heard him talking about the environment? The fact of the matter is Kerry is simply another corporate candidate.
Some still argue that at least he is better than Bush, which to some extent is true. But for all those horrible things that have been happening under Bush, one good thing has happened, and that is the mass mobilization of people against him. As horrible as that sounds, that is a powerful force in society. The problem is that if Kerry gets elected, it is going to quit all these social movements who have been so vocal under Bush. You can't question authority when our guys in office, or you will undermine his authority and the Republicans will win again." Voting in a democrat is not going to bring lasting change, but instead, will just perpetuate this cyclical system. How can the democrats ever expect to get a candidate they like if they are continually voting for the lesser of two evils?
The only way to escape this is to boycott the Democratic party. This brings me to my last point. The people who vote Nader or Cobb in this election know very well what they are doing, and would tend to have a better grip on the issues than the average voters. They vote for these candidates, not out of some hope that they might win, but instead as a desire to change the system. They don't want to vote for Kerry and Kerry does not deserve their votes. It is simple as that. For some deranged reason the Democrats think that they are entitled to all the liberal votes in this country, whether they are act in a way to deserve the votes, or not.
So let me leave you with one final thought. Lawrence Ferlinghetti, poet laureate of San Francisco, and well-known beat poet once said, "I am waiting for things to get much worse before they get better." I am bringing in to this election this same mentality. I does not matter which candidate wins, for neither will be acting for what I believe the common good is. I will be patient. But more so, I will help with the social movements locally to try to make a change, and support progressive candidates who are the base of true grassroots democracy.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 10:50am):
"I think I dealt with that same punk-ass bitch too."
I know the "punk-ass bitch" in question. She's actually a die-hard Bush supporter who acts in the way you described in order to turn people off from the Kerry campaign. It's just another in a long line of dirty tricks from Republicans.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 2:25pm):
Republican "punk-ass bitch[es]" and Nader apologists who want Bush re-elected should just team up and start campaigning for Bush outright and in tandem. If you truly believe the world has to get worse before it gets better, VOTE FOR BUSH you moron. What an awful, cynical, and priveleged proposition. You're clearly in a position to survive the "worse" parts, but not everybody is, you selfish prick.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 3:01pm):
A lot of liberals in Madison make this fellow liberal sick.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 3:03pm):
Why should the rich be penalized for being motivated, hard-working indviduals? Anyone in the US can become wealthy--you just have to get off your lazy ass and work for it! Same goes for healthy insurance.....
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 3:45pm):
Actually not everyone can become wealthy. There exists what is a called a cycle of poverty. If you are born into a poor family you most often are not able to move into a higher economic class than your parents. This is because you do not have as many opportunities as children from wealthier families. Sure there are some examples to the contrary, by and far they are no where near the norm. Not all people are able to go to school. Some cannot even finish high school because their families require them to work to help out.
So do not pedal your "pull yourself up by the boot straps" montra. Or try and tell that to parents who work multiple jobs so their families can get by. See how they react when you tell them they must be lazy, or they would be wealthy by now.
You are probably ten times lazier then the average poor person.
And if being rich equals being hard-working and motivated as you said, then how do you explain Paris Hilton?
Jackass
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 4:07pm):
Nope, I don't believe that punk-ass bitch is actually a die-hard Bush supporter. She looked pretty authentic to me. And her "dirty trick" is the typical M.O. of Madison liberals. Just like the anonymous poster who calls other people "pricks".
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 4:34pm):
Wait, wait, wait...
Calling someone who is a Republican a "prick" is bad, but calling someone who you believe is a liberal a "punk-ass bitch" is OK?
Well I'm glad we cleared that one up. God forbid someone use foul language anyway. You might upset the children that often post on this board and complain about people giving them the finger in public. And someone with multiple piercings and a non-traditional haircut no less. The outrage! Did she hurt you with her glare? Did you miss work because her words hurt your feelings?
Grow up, people will use harsh language and continue to in the future whether they are liberal, conservative or god forbid somewhere inbetween. Quit being such a pussy.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:25pm):
If you are born into a poor family, it may be more difficult to become part of the leisure class, but that does not mean it's impossible. Paris Hilton--of course there are always exceptions... but aside from the Powerball, money does not fall into people's laps, it has to be earned. Her parents EARNED it. As far as the "cycle of poverty," then what is your solution? Taking money from the rich to give to the poor? If that's the case, then your policy is just enhancing that cycle. What incentive is there to work and advance yourself if you can just expect government hand outs at the cost of wealthy individual? That's the problem with the cycle. Why work, when you don't have to? Why try as hard as you can to be in the top 10% of your class so you can get into a great school, when you are already admitted based on your race? Hell, if people were throwing me money left and right and admitting me to top schools based on my heritage, I doubt I'd try very hard either--because I wouldn't NEED to. And calling me a jackass--real classy.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:33pm):
But the liberal cause ISN'T helping the families who have parents with multipe jobs, etc. Those people are very motivated and hard-working. Your cause is helping the lazy people who REFUSE to get jobs and actually work for a living.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:35pm):
Don't give me shit about this cycle of poverty and not being able to move up into a higher economic class. I know a lot of people at school here who come from poor families with parents who have no college education, who will graduate from UW and thrive in high-paying, wonderful careers. It is absolutely possible to advance to a higher class, and many, many people are doing that right now, right here.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:36pm):
You are wrong, because if the average poor person were not lazy, he or she wouldn't be poor. PERIOD.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:37pm):
Wrong! The "punk-ass bitch" is a punk-ass bitch because she was being an obnoxious pain in the ass to people on the street. She has no business harrassing people like she did. And I refuse to believe the claim that she is really an agent of the Republican Party.
Her tactic is the same tactic that liberals all over the country are currently using to try to sway voters. Even people who are solidly behind Kerry are disgusted by idiots like her. That's why we are worried that such immature antics may cause Kerry supporters to reconsider who they'll vote for.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 5:40pm):
If liberals want to make liberalism more appealing then why don't they just grow up and leave the childplay to the other side? Can't do it, can you? Looks like Bush is getting another four years.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 6:16pm):
If liberals want to avoid poverty, they should major in something that will get them a job. Something engineering, medicine or computer science. If you major in philosophy, political science or art and you can't find work, you only have yourself to blame. If you throw all your money to a bunch of middl-age drunks on the street and you don't have enough money left over to feed yourself, you have nothing to bitch about. Get a haircut, get a real job!
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 6:56pm):
Liberals in Madison give liberals everywhere a bad name. Their scare tactics are just a mere sign of how scared they are that Kerry will lose. I don't know why they support Kerry anyway. All Kerry will do is the same crap Bush is doing. If that's the case then why change presidents?
Personally, I'd like to see our troops out of Iraq. We got Saddam, now let's go home. Kerry will put even more troops over there and thus increasing the possibility of a draft, not to mention an increase in defense spending. Does that sound like someone liberals want in power, someone who will slash domestic spending on programs to help the poor, just so they can send other people's kids to die halfway around the world?
I think liberals in Madison need lobotomies if they think Kerry will change anything for the better. I'm not voting this time. At least I won't be to blame.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 7:15pm):
I read where Teresa Heinz Kerry said that Laura Bush has never had a real job. Laura Bush worked as a teacher from 1968 to 1977. What the hell has Teresa Heinz Kerry ever done for a living? Doesn't sound like something I'd care to listen to for the next four years.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 8:49pm):
I just started classes here at UW-Madison this fall. I had heard all kinds of stories about this school for years. God, I never thought those stories would turn out to be true!
And what's more is that it is the wacko left-wing extremists who are the biggest retards. I can't believe they are still around. Nobody has run them out of town yet?! How much can the rest of the local population take? Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting at all in this election. I think BOTH candidates suck. And that "punk ass bitch" someone wrote about earlier, I hope I never run into her.
Matt (October 20, 2004 @ 10:14pm):
To the Anon posting "Don't get me wrong, I'm not voting at all in this election. I think BOTH candidates suck.":
Please register to vote, go to the polls, and file an empty ballot, then. Not going to the polls is not participating. Going to the polls and not voting for either candidate is participating and sending a message - a ballot that doesn't count towards either candidate says a lot more than a vague statistics point about how many people don't bother going to the polls.
To Anon posting "If liberals want to avoid poverty, they should major in something that will get them a job. Something engineering, medicine or computer science.":
Don't forget you'll need teachers for you kids, philosophy to understand the people around you, history to understand what you're doing from what has been, arts to retain your humanity (you can't escape your biological desires for the aesthetically pleasing - besides, you'll want something pretty in your mansion, right?), literature to pass on your legacy and maintain lines of communication... And getting a degree in Liberal Arts doesn't preclude you from finanical success - examine the degrees of CEOs for some Fortune 500 companies for examples. Those degrees exist here at the UW because they are useful - they are not for lazy or unintelligent students. Your note about fiscal responsibility I appreciated, though.
Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 11:09pm):
Laura Bush has fake titties?
Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 12:06am):
Laura Bush may have fake titties, but Teresa Heinz Kerry has no brains. And brains are what voters need to see. In your face, liberal swine!
Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 12:09am):
"Those degrees exist here at the UW because they are useful"
For what? Teaching the same subject at your alma mater because you couldn't get a job with it out in the real world? Remember, a professor is someone who tries to teach you how to face the challenges in life that he successfully avoided by becoming a professor.
Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 5:23am):
Hey, there are many 'useful jobs' (as if that can be quantified to begin with) that require a 4 year degree in any subject. Peace corps, foreign service officer, teacher, pre-med, etc. If noone chose to study the arts, there would be less movies to see, paints to admire, museums to visit, music to listen to, concerts to attend, photography, cultures studied, great books written to read... if you think that is useless, you must be the dullest person on earth.
Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 10:33am):
I nevered offered a solution to the "cycle of poverty" nor said we should just throw money to lazy people. And just because you know a few people at UW who had poor parents does not mean everyone can acheive as they did. You cannot use an example of a few people to generalize across all poor people. All poor people are not lazy, and not all wealthy people are hard working. Especially not the children of the wealthy, who take their advantages for granted when they look at where they got in life.
And if you really do not think the cycle of poverty exists, go talk to a Sociology Prof. on campus.
