2.15

Voting is for losers. I'm pretty sure this is an established fact. It's, like, you know when you learn about research papers, and your teacher is all "plagiarism is, like, soooo bad, cite ev-r-y-thing... except common knowledge, cause that stuff is, like, frickin' free?" It's like that.

And yet, some people still have this idea that, like, democracy is so awesome or something. And I'm like, "Um... what?" And then they're like, "Democracy allows people to decide, through themselves or their representatives, how their organization/country works and what it does (or doesn't) do." And I'm all, "Um... no it doesn't." And they're all, "Of the people, by the people, for the people."

That's when I know I've got them. Because, like, I know some people, right? And, for the most part, people are jerks. I mean, sometimes they're not, but, like, most of the time? Pretty much jerks. So, like, why would I want to be involved in something that was so, you know, "peopled?" Seriously, guys.

Seriously.

In (mostly) seriousness, though, voting is an issue I've often had quite the brouhaha with over my ever increasing years of eligibility (got to get them in before that mail fraud conviction renders my electoral opinion moot in theory, not just practice). Regular readers of the column, or as I like to call them " "s, may have noticed that I'm not what one would call "the rosiest rosebud on the rose tinted rose bush road" (although that would look terribly good on a resume...). So it is that I, like most people, have grown a tad disillusioned with, well, most everything.

But instead of focusing solely upon the vast, external factors affecting all the everything whose illusions I have dissed, I attempt to divine how I would like for people to live and act. This process is long, arduous, and ripe with soul crushing failure, but that hasn't stopped me from pursuing romance, education, and, hell, life in general; why should ethics be different?

For instance, I am a vegetarian. In realistic terms, its effect is essentially nonexistent. I don't attempt "conversions," nor am I an "activist" of any sort. But I feel it's logical, ethical, and, if taken up on a large scale, potentially effective. So I do it, I feel good about it, and I hope my example, in some small way, influences others. I'd also be glad to discuss it and listen to counter arguments, if someone was interested, but otherwise, an example is it.

Similarly, this stance is why I decided to write for The Daily Beacon. I read it my freshman year, thought to myself, "I say old boy, surely you can manage at least a comparable effort to the exertions of these poor chaps, perhaps might even improve the state of affairs a bit, wot wot?" submitted some samples, and, well, at least got that "comparable effort" part down pat.

Point being, it's easy (and fun!) to criticize, but when it comes to things that all of us have the potential to control and change, the criticism should first go to ourselves.

How can we reasonably expect people to vote intelligently and responsibly if we don't do it ourselves? How can we genuinely bemoan our electoral powerlessness when we don't posit alternate solutions, much less vote/participate in local elections where a few votes really can make a difference? Presidents aren't the sole byproducts of democracy, after all. Indeed, how can we ever improve if all one does is speak of how we're not improving?

Another skinny vegetarian famously said, "Be the change you want to see." It's much more than a bumper sticker. But only when you actually are.