Referenda will speak for Helenans

By PAUL CARTWRIGHT - 10/01/07

When mail-in ballots are sent to Helena residents on Oct. 19, they will include questions on two important and contentious issues that are shaping the future of our country and our community.

Two referenda will be on the ballot asking Congress to take action. One proposal urges the immediate, orderly and safe withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq. The other supports total, unconditional funding for U.S. military operations against terrorism worldwide.

These referenda are about related but different issues. For both, the proponents argue that the costs of doing nothing are too great. You can argue whether one or both groups are right about their solutions, but there really are costs out there, ones that only will grow greater if nothing is done.

There are dry budgetary costs for Helena: cuts in funding for low-income housing and drug use prevention. There are more personal costs to city services: street department workers and policemen called from their community to serve in Iraq. And there are deeply human costs in Helena: brothers and sons killed at the World Trade Center and in Iraq. These referenda are not about things that are far away.

So why does it matter if you cast a non-binding vote in a little town in Montana? In one sense, it doesn’t. Neither history nor the universe seems to care much about what you or I or any one person thinks. And anyway, we all have our lives, our jobs, our families to keep us busy.

But even so: if everybody’s too small to matter, then nobody matters. And that’s not right. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism pose critical questions for our time. How we answer them individually becomes how they get answered collectively. If we shouldn’t talk about them here, in Helena, in our home, where should we talk about them?

Congress hears plenty from pollsters and lobbyists. It’s OK that Congress hears from us as well. The referenda give each individual a chance to speak for themselves and together to speak for the community. With these referenda, nobody can claim to speak in your place.

To provide Helenans with more information on both issues before they vote, the Helena International Affairs Council, a committee of city government, and Carroll College Students for a Just Society are co-sponsoring a public forum on Helena and war. The forum will be held on Tuesday, Oct. 2, from 7-9 p.m. in the Lower Commons of Carroll College.

Panelists included proponents of each of the referenda, as well as political science professor Eric Pratt, of Carroll College. The forum will be driven by audience questions and moderated by Marc Scow, a professional facilitator and Helena resident.

I have my thoughts about the use of force, public safety and civil liberties, terrorism and the war in Iraq, and I know each of you do, too. This forum gives everybody a chance to share their views, so as we vote this fall, however we vote, we’ve seen that the “other side” is actually people we know, people in our own community.

Mail-in ballots will go out Oct. 19, and must be returned by Nov. 6. Be sure to vote. And I hope you’ll join us this Tuesday at 7 p.m. at Carroll College.

Paul Cartwright is a Helena city commissioner.

4.4 stars
Current rating: 4.4 with 70 ratings.


Untitled Document Please login to enter comment :
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Click here to register
Reader Comments:

purple wrote on Oct 13, 2007 9:10 AM:

" "consider this", so then you had no problem with Saddam murdering hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and burying them in mass graves, the tortured and rape of 8-year old girls in front of their fathers, imprisoning pre-teen boys for declining to become members of Saddam's version of the Hitlery Youth, or the use of weapons of mass destruction on the Kurds. And you consider the war in Iraq to be immoral? Interesting how it is immoral to liberal 25 million people, yet it is not immoral to murder, torture, and rape. Can you name one single time in American history where 70 percent of registered voters showed up to vote to elect their government leaders? The people of Iraq didn't vote in those high numbers once, but three times and unlike Americans who take their freedoms for granted, the people of Iraq ran the risk of being murdered by the insurgents. Freeloading Americans won't go to the polls to vote because of the weather while the people of Iraq brave being blown up and still vote in far greater numbers than Americans. Sadly, far too many Americans no longer either know or even care about democracy because they have this false preception that democracy will "always" remain. "

consider_this wrote on Oct 10, 2007 12:40 PM:

" Ok. I’ll take the bait. Now that we know that before the war the administration knew its “case” for war false (thanks to disclosures from a hoard of recent administration desertions) or at best, questionable, then if Saddam were still in power, here would be the most likely present state of world affairs: First, Iraq would pose no nuclear threat. Second, Osama would probably be dead by now because our military and intelligence resources would have been properly directed at finding the actual perpetrator of 9/11, instead of being sucked into the quagmire they are now in. Third, we would still have friends in the world. Even our last “ally,” Britain, is now pulling out the last of its troops, and understandably no one else in the world wants to get involved helping us out of our mess. Fourth, there would probably be a more secure gov’t in Afghanistan, because the whole world viewed that war as justified and would probably be helping out there since, in contrast to Iraq, the people of Afghanistan were ready to overthrow the Taliban. Fifth, if Saddam were still in power, Iran would not be the threat it is today. Sixth, instead of the carnage of three American deaths and 80 or so Iraqis dying in Blackwater shootouts and insurgent car bombs every day, Saddam would instead be murdering a whole lot fewer political opponents today. "

purple wrote on Oct 7, 2007 8:01 AM:

" "consider this" - I understand you are opposed to the war, however, do you believe that Saddam and his sons should have been left in power? "

consider_this wrote on Oct 5, 2007 3:02 PM:

" I hadn't heard about the Vietnam memorial being defaced, but don't expect me to defend that kind of behavior. Likewise, it is unfair to lump all opponents of the war in with vandals. Many of us vehemently opposed to this immoral war support the troops just as enthusiastically by demanding that their lives no longer continue to be sacrificed by a president desperate to save face and his own pathetic sense of pride. This is what I call supporting the troops. "

purple wrote on Oct 5, 2007 9:33 AM:

" A month or so back some anti-war morons defaced the Vietnam Memorial in Washington D.C. by spraying a substance which damaged the black marble and damaged the engraving of several names. That is how much respect the anti-war schmucks have for the men and women who lost their lives serving this nation in uniform. What is sickenly funny is that these same folks run around screeching "we support the troops". I lost a close friend in Vietnam and I find it disgraceful that those who "claim" to support the troops would be such low lifes as to deface a memorial to this nation's war dead. Check out the following web site for information on the damage - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893742/posts "

purple wrote on Oct 2, 2007 8:40 PM:

" How many know what it costs to equip the troops who are doing the fighting? Try $ 17,500 per warrior, which is over 10 times what it cost to equip those who fought in WWII. Democrats have called for cutting off funding for the war. Instead of rushing in for sound bytes, maybe they should take a long hard look at where the money goes. The vast majority of money for the war goes towards the necessities to keep them alive - body armor, food, ammo, fuel, etc. Transporting them, their equipment, and their supplies from the U.S. or their overseas bases and back is also included. The new mine resistant vehicle everyone has been calling for cost money too. Think the cost for a civilian HUMMER is bad at $ 60,000 per copy, try nearly DOUBLE that for a military version. It is so sad that so many cannot or will not look at the big picture when it comes to military logistics and realize that nothing in life is free, including your freedom. Think you have a corner on being against war, those who actually have to fight them have more of a reason NOT TO fight than you since it is their life which is on the line. "

consider_this wrote on Oct 2, 2007 10:43 AM:

" So you don't think the president's war is a "local" issue? Go to the War Memorial in Helena's Memorial Park and read the four (soon to be five) names etched in granite under the caption "Global War on Terror" and then re-post your ignorant opinion that this is not a "local" issue. Those four (five) names are the "local" cost in blood for this immoral war. When you also consider the "local" cost in treasure, the amount of money wasted on the president's "non-local" war has cost Helena and Lewis and Clark County enought money to provide health insurance for EVERY one of its citizens. So much for this immoral war not being of "local" significance. "

purple wrote on Oct 2, 2007 9:32 AM:

" "consider this", I guess you forgot the outcome of the FIRST forumn held at Carroll College - the anti-war crowd shouted down "every" person who had the audacity to stand up and attempt to voice their support for the war. Who called you unpatriotic? As for godless, it sure isn't the conservatives who are removing GOD from public spaces. As for defeatocrats, well the leadership in the democrat party have been claiming the "war is lost" - sure sounds like a defeatist attitude to me, how about you? Imagine if today's democrats had been around on June 6th, 1944 when the U.S. suffered 9,000 casualties in the first 12 hours, they would have called for a retreat and for Ike's head on a platter. Since 1952, democrat presidents have not had what it takes to WIN any war this nation has fought. "

htycrc wrote on Oct 1, 2007 2:24 PM:

" I cannot beleive that Helena is wasting it's time on this. The purpose of local elections is to FIX "local" problems. People shouldn't be focused on issues that WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, instead they should be focused on local issues that WILL make a difference. Lets focus on traffic plans, growth plans, schools, groundwater quality, parks and rec --- all the things that matter to small communities. "

consider_this wrote on Oct 1, 2007 10:36 AM:

" Why don't you go and surprise your neo-con prejudice when what you expect does not happen? This forum's express purpose is to air opposing views. I expect it will be very civil. It sure beats smearing war opponents as unpatriotic godless defeatocrats. "

purple wrote on Oct 1, 2007 8:51 AM:

" I would attend the forumn, HOWEVER, the anti-war crowd will no doubt be their usual rude selves and interrupt, shout down, and use other tactics to prevent those who hold an opposing view from openly expressing their point of view, so it would be a total waste of my time. When I was a youngun, my mom taught me that interrupting someone while they are speaking is rude - too bad so many moms either didn't teach manners or their teaching just didn't stick. "


Text Size:
Small | Medium | Large

View/Post Comments
 Email this story
  Print this story
 Rate Article
 Share Article

submit to reddit Delicious Digg!