Opinion

Why I Vote

Nancy-Lou Polk
Copy Editor

I slacked off voting after a move from Los Angeles to Seattle. Maybe it was too daunting to find the poling place in the rainy darkness after work. Too much effort to read the state-issued Voters’ Pamphlet and takes the half hour to vote. Insert some other lousy excuses here.

That bad habit changed in the 1990s when an evening news program showed a story about Haitians voting. The Haitians finally achieved the right to vote after centuries of colonialism, slavery, and brutal dictatorships.

Casting a ballot meant standing in long lines. The Tonton Macoutes, the paramilitary gunmen of Duvalier’s dictatorship circled around them, pointing machine guns. Some voters died when the gunmen opened fire. Others fled.

My biggest challenge to voting had been confined to locating a parking place, or catching the right bus, or finding my voter registration card. No organized group wants to kill me so I don’t vote. After witnessing people sacrificing their lives just to cast a ballot, I vowed not to miss another election.

The practice of voting is old; ancient Greece is the European model of a voting citizenry. But suffrage, the right to vote, had frequently been strictly restricted to adult freeborn-citizen male property owners until the mid-19th century. Voting in America, the precious rite and right of citizenship, has long been suppressed or denied to the decedents of slaves, women of any race, and indigenous Indians (Native Americans).

The voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election were not unique in our history. The southern states have long set bars to voting for Americans of African descent (with literacy tests, the poll tax, and violent intimidation being examples). The Civil Rights movement in the ‘60s was in part a voter registration drive.

The campaign for the American female suffrage began in 1848 and ended in 1920 when the 19th Amendment amended the Constitution. American women finally won the right to vote after an 80 year campaign.

Recently, I watched another news program and saw Afghani women voting – albeit in small numbers. They waited patiently in long lines to cast their ballots. I read last week that Saudi women have been denied the right to vote for the foreseeable future. Saudi women can get their PhDs, just not drive themselves, vote, work, or travel without male permission. Now when I vote I will think of women struggling to express their views and hold office.

This year, the stakes in the American presidential election are extraordinarily high. The next President will likely name two and possibly three Supreme Court judges.

These judges for life will affect the judiciary for the new forty years. A very conservative, right-looking court may overturn Roe v Wade, curtain workers’ rights in favor of corporations’ rights, and severely limit free speech and civil liberties. I hope a less conservative president and legislature is elected so that the suppression of civil liberties and the erosion of workers’ rights will be halted and reversed.

So every four years we can vote to turn the bastard out or return the best candidate to office. If the “wrong” candidate wins, we vote in four years and try again.

Vote. Learn what’s at stake and take the time to cast your ballot.

Vote. Because it’s your privilege.

Vote. Because you can.

My ballot is cast for John Kerry

Nancy-Lou Polk
Copy Editor

I trust Senator Kerry, an educated man who volunteered for duty in Vietnam. He could have gotten deferments but instead enlisted in the Navy while at Yale. He saw the destruction of war first hand and came back to work against the war machine. I don’t think he’ll carelessly throw away the lives of others just to provide profit for his friends.

I don’t distrust Bush and Cheney because of their Vietnam-era deferments. Who wanted to die in a war which was considered immoral and suspect? Vietnam was a meat grinder, killing and crippling so many young men. But Kerry volunteered and he served. Whatever Bush’s service record truly is, he now obscures the truth about that period of his life. Why do Bush’s supporters ridicule Kerry’s Vietnam-stationed service record when Bush’s stateside service was so undistinguished and apparently incomplete?

I still can’t believe George W. Bush was nominated in 2000. His record as governor of Texas was abysmal as regards health care, the roll back of environment safeguards, executions, and reduction in social programs. In 2000, he claimed to be a moderate but proved to be anything but.

I’ll be voting for Kerry in an attempt to halt the erosion of our civil liberties and a power grab under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. September 11th was one of the worst days in American history. It’s a wound that will remain in our living memory for the next hundred years. We have every reason to be frightened by angry terrorists who might kill us with bombs or poisons.

I wanted my government to search for the killers to bring them to justice in a court of law. Instead we have sought revenge, revenge that strikes out at anyone, not just the living few that perpetrated the terrorist act. I wanted the U.S. to show the world that we are a law-abiding country that brings criminals to justice. Our laws are what we do well. Instead we flail around striking out at anyone we could. A social worker friend of mine mentioned that such an over-reaction of indiscriminant violence appears to be a symptom of Post Trauma Delayed Stress.

I want my government to set an example of how to be brave. I want a government that inspires my participation in a democracy. Teach me to be a leader, not be a silent follower. I want a government that I can find strength in, not a government that expects me to cower under the shadow of fear which it casts. Watching my government steal land through occupation and, to excuse torture and brutality so glibly, is no way to teach me how to fight a determined energized foe.

I’ll vote for Kerry and Edwards in hopes we’ll move the nation forward toward more positive actions, not just flailing around, blustering with guns and boasts like “Mission Accomplished” and “Bring ‘em On”.

I’ll be voting this year to maintain the traditional separation of state and church. Social programs of churches aren’t necessarily a bad idea. Churches frequently reach out to those in need who wouldn’t otherwise be reached by government. But federal funding of church-based social programs sanctions religion. It’s better for the state to be neutral; America is a very diverse country. Favoritism is inherently unfair.

I’ll be voting to protect to the right of women to reproductive decisions without government (i.e. a church-influenced state) intrusion. The Bush Administration has increasingly shown itself hostile not only to abortion, but to birth control, sex education, and privacy issues. Access to safe legal abortion could be jeopardized as well as access to birth control. “Choice” might be limited to choosing your obstetrician and how you’ll support your children on your minimum wage job. Your body may be deemed something to be controlled by others unfamiliar with your life and goals. Your life expendable if it doesn’t jib with their ideology.

I am grateful to the Bush Administration and the neoconservatives for one thing though. They taught me why a government should not use ideology and self-absorbed short-term politic gain as a guiding principle. It’s good when facts and reality trump ideology. Besides, real world stuff is always more surprising and fun.

So I vote this year for Kerry Edwards and hope we will move the country away from dogma, cronyism, and needless class warfare.

The sweeping powers of the
USA PATRIOT ACT

Heather Mupita
Editor in-Chief

Students: beware of where you are shooting photographs. A Shoreline Community College student ran into problems with the police and homeland security after taking pictures of a railroad bridge near the Ballard locks in May this year.

Ian Spiers, a student at this college, was approached by a Seattle police officer who had a German shepherd with him and the officer asked him what he was doing and demanded identification. Spiers explained to the officer that he was taking pictures as part of his assignment for his photography class and he showed the officer a copy of his class assignment. He was further approached by three officers from the Seattle Police Department and three from the Homeland Security Department. According to information gathered by Elizabeth Gillespie of the Associated Press, Spiers was told that he had no choice but to show his identification. A Homeland Security agent further informed Spiers that he had broken the law by taking pictures of a federal facility.

The debate on the Patriot Act and whether it really protects the civil liberties of citizens continues to come up time after time. The question arises: Does the Patriot Act really protect the rights of citizens or does it actually curtail these rights?

Spiers, a US citizen believes that his rights were infringed upon. He was treated as a suspicious individual because he took photos of a federal building for a class assignment. One wonders whether the powers of the Act are now too wide and are overreaching to innocent and law-abiding citizens. Is it not apparent that the Act has now not only managed to sweep the dust and dirt on the carpet but has also started destroying the carpet as well? The dust and dirt being the perpetrators against security and acts associated with those perpetrators and the carpet being law abiding citizens of the United Sates. I believe this issue is pertinent for students as they need to know their boundaries when taking pictures for class assignments or just for the fun of it. They need to be made aware that there could be consequences which are not only unpleasant but could haunt them for the rest of their lives as they would never be sure who was watching them out there.

In order to fully understand the origins and objectives of the Act, we need to go back to September 11, 2001. A tragedy and unhappy incident where innocent lives were lost. After September 11, the US Department of Justice set out to draft laws to strengthen laws governing investigation and prosecution of terrorism in a bid to protect civil rights and liberties. On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the Unity and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism followed by the passing of the Act popularly known as the USA Patriot Act.

The objectives of the Act are to enhance the Federal Government’s capacity to share intelligence; to strengthen criminal laws against terrorism, to remove obstacles to investigate terrorism and to update the law to reflect new technological advances.

According to a report from the Department of Justice, “Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work – July 2004, the Act provides the nation’s law enforcement, national defense and intelligence personnel with enhanced and vital new tools to bring terrorists and other dangerous criminals to justice. President Bush also stated upon signing of the Act that it “takes into account of the new reality and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, to dismantle, to disrupt and to punish terrorists before they strike.” For more information click on http://www.whitehouse.gov/ news/releases.

Attorney General Ashcroft also hailed the Act on November 8, 2001 and guaranteed that the Department of Justice has been called to “the highest and most noble form of public service- the preservation of American lives and liberty. For more details click on to http://www.us.doj/ ag/speeches2001.

According to the state, the US Patriot Act will thus make Americans feel safer and will enhance the security of Americans in the future. I looked at some of the provisions of the Act; it is an intimidating piece of legislation. It even has a part that deals with surveillance of foreign students like me. Section 416 makes provision for a“foreign student monitoring program”. A chill actually went down my spine; I realized the Patriot Act does affect me as a foreign student from Zimbabwe.

Section 201 gives authority to intercept, wire, oral and electronic communication relating to terrorism. However I failed to link this with the taking of photographs and did not come across anything that specifically relates to taking pictures of federal buildings or even just to taking pictures.

When all is said and done, the Patriot Act is justified as measures have to be put into place to protect citizens and non-citizens from acts of terror, violence and war. But still, we need to question whether the surveillance measures are not being abused by those in positions of authority. There is always that danger when Governments implement legislation on security issues. Spiers has now started giving talks to students on his fears and how the community can be involved in raising awareness on the issue. This is the opportune moment for students who have been faced with similar circumstances and dilemmas to come out and speak about their concerns and share their experiences just as Ian Spiers did.