My intention in writing is to do something positive. Whether I'm writing a story, a poem, an essay, a letter to the editor, I am trying to do something constructive (as well as to write well). Even when calling Bill Sizemore a jerk or Robin Brown a nitwit, my aim to is to use the name-calling as a device for getting readers' attention. Sometimes it works better than other times, and sometimes I just won't have any luck with some readers.

But that never changes my intention to be positive and constructive. So when I say that Barbara Case of Corvallis is a shining example of what's wrong with America, I mean no personal insult to her. For one thing, she volunteered to write an "In my opinion" piece for the Corvallis Gazette-Times, and that means she volunteered to be subject to readers' responses. Since I submit myself to that treatment frequently, and have taken all kinds of crap from all kinds of people, I feel no compunction is calling her out (especially given the obscurity of this blog). I just say this in advance to be clear that my opinion of her statements have nothing to do with her quality as a person.

Ms Case is upset about how money is wasted on politics and elections. Here's what she says about the signs, mailers and ads that costs millions of dollars:

...the money raised and spent on political campaigns, most of which is spent on insulting the other candidates, is obscene, heartbreaking and criminal.

"Criminal." The expenditure of money, freely raised and freely given, to promote a partisan political cause, is "criminal"? I understand the rest of her point: that the signs are ugly, that the negativity is ugly, and that the money could be better spent on direct services. But to call the free exercise of political rights — the lawful behavior of citizens — "criminal" is to show a disrespect for both our constitutional system and for the choices being made by fellow citizens. It's also stupid.

Ok, that's harsh. "Poorly thought" might be better; how about "knee-jerk"? I think she's wrong, not on moral or aesthetic grounds but on intellectual. Here's the prime example for me:

If you really want my vote, raise your thousands of dollars and give the money to the schools and police and fire and health departments so we don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have to waste time and space with ballot measures for these much-needed services and the people trying to protect us. Put that money where it will actually do some good and will help those in real need.

Take Sara Gelser, for example, who in a few hours will have won her first two-year term in the Oregon House. Her campaign will spend several tens of thousands of dollars. She could have raised, say, $50,000 and given it to the 509J Schools Foundation, maybe as an endowment. That money could have paid for two or three special needs teachers for the next twenty years. That sounds great to me.

Or she could spend $50,000 and become a member of the Legislature. There she can help craft legislation that will force corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, that will ensure state spending priorities are in order (education, health care, etc), and that will provide the necessary resources — and not just money, either — to schools across the entire state to address the full range of issues regarding special needs students and their families (and schools).

Which is the better investment? A few teachers in Corvallis, or a huge improvement in all schools across Oregon? Makes the idea of giving money directly to programs seem kind of wasteful.

The questions begged here, of course, is who these candidates are and what they represent. My example is rigged because Sara is one of the best candidates anywhere. She represents the community with integrity and with intelligence; she's pro-choice but will treat anti-choice constituents with respect. She'll push hard for money for education and health care, but she'll do all she can to make sure that areas of less importance to her will get the same fair hearing her "favorites" do. There are many candidates across the state and national who are of this quality; there are also nitwits, jerks and criminals. But the bad apples (and the stupid ones) are not reason to say the entire system is corrupt or broken.

What's broken, more than anything else, is the citizenry. How many people turn off the tv and study the issues? How many attend public meetings of any kind, whether held by the City Council to talk about civil rights, or the League of Women Voters to discuss a ballot measure, or the Willamette Valley Forum to learn the real nature of terrorism? How many instead choose American Idol or Dancing with the Stars (or reruns of Sienfeld or Friends)? Millions watch Fox or CNN — or god help them, network "news" — and think they are getting something that remotely resembles facts. Less than ten minutes of real news, and they think they are qualified to vote? That's criminal. If it's illegal for me to take my knowledge of law enforcement and wear a police uniform, why the hell do these people think they get to dress up as a citizen? Because they were born here and are allowed to drop their fat ass on a couch in front of a tv six hours a day?

Ms Case is also ticked that businesses spend billions on ads. She enjoys Geico ads but will never buy their product because of the huge amounts they spend on commercials. Say what? If they didn't spend the money on commercials, their customers would come from where? Word-of-mouth? Osmosis? Ok, I think the insurance industry is illegitimate and ought to be a public function of government — we insure banks publically; why not the health and welfare of real people? — but given that most Americans like capitalism, Geico and every other business in the country has to sell themselves before anyone buys from them. She actually thinks the money the spent on ads should have been spent instead on Katrina victims. And where would any of that money to help anyone come from if they didn't sell policies first?

Here's what she does approve of: Ads that include coupons and special offers. In other words, she'll take bribes. That's such a ringing endorsement of both capitalism and the American Way.

Bitching about the way campaigns are run is shameful. If you do not like how things are going, you have only one choice: get involved. If you do not get involved, and that means more than voting periodically, you do not get to complain. The right to complain, unlike the rights in the Constitution, is earned. Uninformed bitching is criminal, just like calling 911 with false information is criminal. Ms Case's complaints are just dumb, but those who attack free speech with M46, who abuse free speech with the ads advocating for M45, who make up false supporters like Robin Brown did — these are the criminals.

Spending millions on campaigns is a dumb way to run elections. But until citizens are willing to take responsibility, become informed, and to be active in their community, we have little choice but to allow the selling of candidates and the buying of votes. When people like Barbara Case are ready to actually do something about, I have a suggestion. Instead of whining to the GT, call up your neighbors and invite them over to talk seriously about your community and what real actions you will take to get involved. Bitching is not action. It's surrender.