Angry and Black Since 1976; Somebody's Momma Since 2010
Now, more than ever, people need to get out and vote. That's the only way things are going to change in this country. This country is a mess right now.
AMEN! This is the absolute truth! I found out a month ago that someone I've known for 20 years wasn't registered. I was appalled. We got him signed up pronto and I will drag him to the polls if I have to.
I have several reasons why I don't vote anymore. The biggest reason is because I believe its an act of futility. Did anything change in the last election you voted? No not really. It is the pulling back and forth between this concept of good vs bad. "If you vote for this candidate then this problem will be solved" Ok maybe one problem is solved but then the candidate that solved that one problem for you opened the door to another problem. so the next election you vote for the guy who is gonna solve that problem, and so on. Every election the president will patch one hole and punch through a dozen more "but hey I patched up that hole that I was put here to fix, so my presidency was a success" It can only continually get worse. Socrates said something once. "every government carries its own seed for destruction" and so far he has been right. Every society, nation, empire, that has ever existed has crashed. Thinking that America is going to be the exception to the rule is folly. Voting is just another way to keep the people happy. To make them feel like they still have a say in things. Its just a big sheep show. Zindzi, made some very good observations on her blog a while back that I thought was pretty interesting. http://notasdumb.blogspot.com/2008/06/our-silence-will-never-protect-us.html Her train of thought on the matter is worth reading so if you get a chance check it out. It just gets to the point that politicians are paid professional liars, and the more likable and charismatic one is the more they probably lie. I never met a con artist I didn't like. As far as the "now more than ever people need to get out and vote" Its the same every election, as far back as I can remember. I talked to some of the old timers just recently about this very same subject, and they all told me virtually the same thing. "The news says that every election. This election is more important than ever before, Get out there and vote, four years later its the same thing" But lets just say that that's the case, then that means that things are perpetually getting worse and if that's true then voting isn't working. And the last reason is mainly because of my religious beliefs. I am not necessarily trying to get in a debate about religion. But keep in mind that If your a Christian, God said he places Kings on there thrones and he takes them off. He also said he creates the good and he creates the bad. Why would god put an evil SOB like Bush and Co. in office? I dunno... but chances are he probably isn't happy with people if he is putting bad people in office. Anyways, I can argue this either way. Secular or otherwise. Lastly I feel that voting is a way of saying that, I am incompetent of handling my own political affairs, and therefor need to elect someone to handle them for me. Almost like hiring a lawyer when you are perfectly capable of representing yourself pro se... anyways just my thoughts on the issue. September 26, 2008 6:11 AMI totally agree. I feel the same way about this country. Truthfully, I don't think we'll last any longer, maybe 40-50 years longer. But that's optimistic. After the Civil War, more trust was being put into politicians and businessmen in general. Which meant less people being involved in government. And less accountability was being made. Finally, big business tycoons such as Ford and Rockefeller in the early 20th century monopolized this country into their own playground and took advantage of the people. Today, politicians are just puppets for the wealthy and the elite. Some of these elites are politicians themselves. My point is America had it's chance and like many civilizations before us they blew their chance as well. Now, voting won't change a thing, you have to take action. I have to be honest, Obama and McCain are the same person but on different sides. It's like somebody laying out cyanide pills on the ground and the red hand says pick one. It all leads to the same thing!
Nothing changed in the last election I voted for because we got the same exact person. I understand candidates have agendas, but there is no good vs. bad in humanity, everything is in between, some more good than bad, some vice versa, but any sane adult should know this.We all know that America is a young country, and I don't think all of us are sitting around pretending we are where we were power wise in the 1940s and 1950s, to do so would be absolutely crazy, but to sit and do nothing does not resolve anything either. I find it strange you want to be a state representative one day, but you don't vote.Zindi is upset, and rightfully so, she feel Obama abandoned her church and pastor. He did for all intensive purposes, but honestly he didn't have a choice People want to label him a race hater and prove why a black president will make a horrible choice for whites. I don't think whites ever asked this question when George Wallace and Strom Thurmond ran for President.People do need to get out and vote in every election, not just the national election. If you are only voting once every for years, you aren't getting out to vote. You vote in Congress, as well as the for President. If this economy and war don't seem important to you, that is all good, but to me those are very good reasons to vote. It might be the same sh*t different day, in your eyes, but 50 years ago it wasn't the same sh*t different day for blacks, as we basically didn't have the right to vote prior to 1965 in the majority of southern states, and some died to do so. Short of calling for a political coup, or anarchy, the only recourse most people have is who they vote for.
And replace it with what Casper?"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."Winston Churchill
And replace it with what Casper?"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."Winston ChurchillHow about replace it as a Republic? Like it should have been in the first place. That's what the founders of this country wanted. Sure they weren't the greatest guys in the world. They owned slaves and treated their women as 2nd class citizens. However, they had a great idea. This country wasn't founded as a democracy. Democracy shortcuts itself to tyranny. Think Rome and Caesar. The founders of this country such as Hamilton, Franklin, Jefferson, etc. opposed in their own writing's a governmental foundation based on a democracy. Hell, even the US Constitution says republican form of government. Not democratic.I think we'd be better off. Or we could try another one? I know it's easier said than done. But how much of a choice do you have? What are the alternatives?
Think Rome? REPUBLICAN ROME? That was a democracy?Well, yes actually. It was a representative democracy, just like the original and current model for the US. We are not a direct democracy and nothing larger than Ancient Athens has ever tried to be. You create a distinction without a difference.Unless of course you're attempting to comment on the existence of our constitution, a fairly unique document, if one which I have certain problems with.What other choice do we have? Vote for someone else. Or even run for office yourself. Start at a local level, school board, county or even state offices and work your way up. Or don't, we certainly need competent, qualified people who act as the lower levels of elected officials. If Sarah Palin can do it, so can you!A quotation from one of my favorite authors:"Now there's this about cynicism, Sergeant. It's the universe's most supine moral position. Real comfortable. If nothing can be done, then you're not some kind of shit for not doing it, and you can lie there and stink to yourself in perfect peace."Lois McMaster BujoldSorry for the snarkiness, couldn't help myself.And a second quotation. Sorry, but Casper really did start it:"I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag” Craig Washington
And here's the quote you're paraphrasing: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson However, that doesn't change the fact that what stops them from voting to lynch you is that lynching is illegal. However, there's no guarantee they wouldn't take your well: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 5th Amendment US Constitution. Without just compensation. Eminent Domain.Also, note, your quote is from the decleration of independence, which while a pretty document, is not, as far as I know, legally binding.However, I'm more than willing to concede that the US is not what the founding fathers invisioned more than two centuries ago.I'm okay with that. We tend to imbue the founding fathers with this infallibility which is utterly absurd. I'm not talking here about slavery, I'm talking about simple bad design on their part. The idea of having the vice president be chosen as the guy who got the secondmost votes in the presidential election? Bad Idea.There's a reason they created a system which was open to change, via the route of Constitutional amendments, which was quite simply that they knew they couldn't account for everything and said: "We've solved our problems, you solve yours." Which isn't a quote, just me putting words in the founding fathers' mouths.Now, as I understand the definition, republics, are a subcategory of representative democracy. Namely one without a heridetary head of state. Constitutional republics are a subcategory of republics. So, we are both correct, just like you'd be correct if you said I was a white male and I'd be correct if I said I was a person.Rebellion, or at least, violent rebellion has not proven to be an effective means of changing the US government. Non-violent rebellion on the other hand has proven quite effective.Now, because I just love quotes, I give you one supporting your position:"It is not light that we need, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake." Frederick Douglass And one supporting mine:“Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” Martin Luther King, Jr. “Non-violence is not inaction. It is not discussion. It is not for the timid or weak... Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win.” Cesar Chavez quotes Okay, I lied and gave you two. Also, sorry if that bit about republics being a subset of representative democracies came off condescending, I'm rushing off to class and am therefore trying to ignore the carefully learned lesson: Always avoid excessive and extraneous polysyllabic verbiage.
Oh, and in case I wasn't entirely clear, one of the simplest, most effective means of individual non-violent rebellion is...drumroll please...voting.
Whoops, forgot my quote there: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F. KennedyAnd this is where I think we differ, Casper, Anonymous, peaceful revolution to my mind seems entirely possible and violent revolution seems counter-productive, unnecessary and entire evitable.Sorry, just can't help myself.
Some people might have written 'entirely evitable' not 'entire evitable.'Oh, well, "A man occupied with public or other important business cannot, and need not, attend to spelling"Napoleon Bonaparte
We can arge semantics if you want, but I should probably warn you: I grew up in a house filled with linguists and lawyers. Also, I looked this up earlier because I made the same mistake you did a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracyCasper wrote: "Actually its a great idea, John Adam during his presidency enacted the Sedition Act. Which in effect made free speech a punishable offence. Thomas Jefferson, as vice president from the opposite party immediately saw the flaws in this and developed the states right of nullification. This process, as you would prefer, is a nonviolent solution to the problem of a president overstepping his authority. This allowing the states to decide if they want to enforce the law. Having a vice president from an opposing side is another way to keep power from accumulating into the hands of too few."You mean the Kentucky Resolution which he wrote in secret and published anonymously? Or the Virginia resolution Written by James Madison, also published anonymously, when I believe, he wasn't even a member of Congress, let alone Vice President.I have more, especially on education, but class calls. So, a final point, you write: "Only by strict interpretation of the Constitution could the greatness that was once America be preserved. (Granted there were some things that did need to be changed, and how it could be done with strict interpretation, but that's another subject for another day)."So all of the constitution, except this bit should be strictly enforced (putting aside, because it's not the point of this conversation the question of slavery): "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;"
Education: if our goal is to produce people who can regurgitate a list of facts and figures on demand, then yes our education system is a failure. However, in the modern world, I'm not convinced that that is a good goal. Critical thinking is something that our school system, especially our university system does teach quite well, at least in my experience.That's not to say there aren't problems. The lack of good civics courses in high school and earlier is ridiculous and the current funding system based on property taxes is somewhere between asinine and discriminatory, not to mention remarkably counter-productive.Oh, and thanks for the cookie, excellent, it's chocolate-chip, how did you know?“A balanced diet is a cookie in each hand”Unknown Author.On the question of violent rebellion, yes it historically has been successful. When dealing with a modern state, with a modern police force and a modern army...Still: "We are a rebellious nation. Our whole history is treason; our blood was attained before we were born; our creeds were infidelity to the mother church; our constitution treason to our fatherland."Theodore ParkerAnd yet, was Sir Thomas More's treason bloody? Did his rebellion consume more than his life?Must treason be the clash of armies on the battlefield?Huh, too much reading of quotations, I'm starting to sound a bit wierd...
To Casper:Congrats on the new baby. Boy or Girl? I think you mentioned having a daughter already.
No problem, real life takes priority. I guess.Congratulations on the baby. Good luck.
anyone who self righteously talks about not voting is so far off the mark (and worthy of a huge eye roll), sorry casper. the outcome of the last two American elections has been devastating to the world. Could you argue this isn't really democracy, is highly flawed, etc. etc. but that voting is futile. This is simply foolish.Foolish and morally irresponsible.
@SuperJV: I can't speak for Casper, but I saw the debate we were/are having as being more about the structure of the US govt and how it has evolved than more practical matters. I agree we should have more people vote, but I'm not convinced that will change the results. After all, if the country really is as divided as it appears to be, broadening the voter base won't change anything except the number of ballots cast.I vote because I consider it to be a civic duty, like paying taxes. He doesn't, because (and now, going back on my word, I speak for Casper) he thinks the system is so broken, as proven by the last eight/sixteen/hundred years and voting would be giving his support to a system he considers broken beyond repair. I have to admit, the handling of the fiscal crisis has lent his argument a bit more credence than I expected, but, while I continue to believe his opinion (as I understand it) is wrong, but I don't think it's either 'foolish' or 'morally irresponsible'. If he believed as he does and voted that would be morally irresponsible, becaus he would be abandoning his beliefs. If he believed as you and I do and didn't vote, he would be morally irresponsible. But, he isn't and he doesn't (as far as I can tell).Note: I don't imagine Casper needs me to defend him, but he's busy and I felt the point needed to be addressed.
Post a Comment