Vote for Change
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 2:23pm
Looks like voter turnout in Pennsylvania was only 40% overall, and the Republican Wall St guy defeated the Democrat by ONE percentage point.
Still think that not voting is a "vote for change"? Once again, the inactive non-voters "won" the American elections, so let's see how much positive change that "victory" brings.
However, I give kudos to all of you who voted and to everyone across the US who successfully stopped the predicted Republican/Tea Party takeover of the Senate! Good job, folks! Midterm elections historically swing away from the party of the President, but with Obama in the Presidency and Democrats still leading the Senate, maybe there's still some positive work that can be done to continue to bring health care to the uninsured, to continue to bring the troops home, and to hopefully DIScontinue Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
FROM PRESSTV.IR :
Voter turnout has been low for this year's midterm elections in the United States, as the Democrats lose their majority in the House of Representatives.
[...]
In polls conducted across the US, voter turnout was reportedly low, specifically among students. Student groups, however, attributed this to poor advertising on campus.
[...]
Students, though, may be adversely affected by the Republic gain in the House of Representatives this year, said Jeffrey Stonecash, a political science professor at Syracuse University, New York.
He told The Daily Orange student newspaper that Republicans may try to cut funding for Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay their tuition.
Republicans have reportedly vowed to cut USD 100 billion of next year's federal budget, with USD 5 billion likely coming out of the Federal Pell Grant Program.
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:55am
#2
"This video is no longer
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by home box office"
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:23pm
#3
Take 2
You can watch it here, with a bit of sunday morning venting by yours truly: http://matthew-roth.livejournal.com/120895.html
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:22pm
#4
That's really a great clip.
That's really a great clip. Funny, true, maddening, and ultimately inspiring. I hope more people see this. The "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" had a lot of power to reach out to people...
We as entertainers also have power.
Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:40pm
#5
More evidence that something is seriously broken...
Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:55am
#6
Hi
I don't really need to argue, so just did not post.
Everyone can think and do whatever they like.
Though I feel hesitant to do so (because it is easy to not share or express oneself and you get much more popular, powerful, rich, etc.) I will share a few thoughts.
Still think that not voting is a "vote for change"? by Jeff Lewis
Of course, you may not have been asking me, but my personal answer is that I do not think not voting is a vote for change.
I believe it is not a vote for anything.
It is not a vote.
The "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" had a lot of power to reach out to people...by Jeff Lewis
My view is it had power in the way Glenn Beck's had power.
Both were shlock.
We as entertainers also have power.by Jeff Lewis
Personally, the only time I am an entertainer is when I am at work.
It is then that I do indeed have power.
When I sing my songs I am the opposite of an entertainer.
Power comes with telling lies and stepping on others.
No prophet, or spiritual leader, or any other person walking the walk of peace has any power.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:52am
#7
I think that Barry is right
I think that Barry is right on the money regarding the Restore Sanity rallies. I would add that they came across as subversive ads for Comedy Central. Also, maybe I didn't see the right photos, but the rally seemed to be all whites. Jon Stewart can be very sharp--especially skewering Obama--but I think he was out of his element with that rally, just as Colbert was out of his element when he testified before Congress. I found that performance to be insulting.
Barry, I haven't had a chance to go back and read your previous arguments on voting, but I wanted to reemphasize that while I personally vote, I have heard perfectly legitimate arguments for not voting. Many of the strongest arguments for not voting simply point out to the way A) the government of the United States is corrupt, hypocritical, imperialistic, wasteful, criminal; and B) the idea that either the Democratic or Republican parties significantly change things is an illusion.
These non-voters look at the wars we are engaged in and the foreign civilians we are killing. Let's not talk about whether or not the US has pulled out of Iraq. Let's talk about whether the US is screwing with the Middle East at all. Of course they are. Non-voters often point out how forgiving and rationalizing liberals are of their preferred political leaders. One of the saddest lessons lost from 9/11 is that Clinton got off so easily. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists aren't idiots when it comes to US politics. They know when there is a Republican president, they know when there is a Democratic president. Regardless of whether or not they are justified in their actions, their expressed motivations are always the same: the US needs to get out of the Middle East and quit bombing the crap out of people. Not the Republicans. Not the Democrats. The US, regardless of who is in power.
Non-voters see every election rehashing the same catch phrases: "this is the most important election ever." "We can't let so-in-so get into power." "Other candidates have been bad in the past, but this candidate is really bad and really dangerous and we really need to vote." These "fears" are nothing new. The urgency is nothing new. I can understand their disgust.
Non-voters see two dominant parties that, despite their supposed differences of philosophy, are both intent on maintaining large, ineffective bureaucratic institutions within our government. A vote for Democrats or Republicans does nothing to change the War on Drugs, the wars in the Middle East, the national debt, our government's unhealthy relationship with the health insurance industry...
Non-voters see that Obamacare is nothing more than this: poor Americans are now going to be forced into purchasing crappy health insurance plans from private companies. Am I wrong on this? The public option--which is the closet thing liberals would have gotten to "Sweden"--was bargained off the table early on. There has been so much turd-polishing in regard to this health care legislation that I question the common sense of people I know. How much/well do they read about what is going on?
I have heard from more than one person that the "only" reason the are voting is because of abortion/gay rights. They don't even have a stance on some of the macro issues I mentioned above. Look,
Abortion is going to be an issue for a long, long time. The way "control" of this country bounces back and forth between the two dominant parties, there is no way that a woman's right to choose will ever be A) guaranteed or B) denied completely any time soon. I'm not saying that this isn't a good reason to vote, but for people who have given up on voting, I can understand why it's not a deal-breaker for non-voters.
As far as gay rights, I still feel as if the most effective way gays have of achieving full rights is not by banking on a politician to change things for them. Groundbreaking legislation works, from what I can tell, when popular opinion is so strong that any politician, regardless of party or their own personal feelings, needs to do something if they want to stay in office. LBJ signed the civil rights legislation, but his political history reveals an individual who was willing to lie and/or completely shift platforms if he felt it would get him elected. The same thing with Obama...it seems as if he'll say what he needs to say to get the liberal vote, but now that he's in office and his actions are judged more significantly by all voters, he's not exactly radical. Like Jeff said, I think that artists have the power to change situations, but I would argue that their power lies not in getting people to vote, but by making the general public comfortable with/receptive to progressive ideas, tipping public attitude to the point where politicians can't ignore it.
So again, I can see why this issue isn't enough to get an anarchist off the couch.
*********
Where I disagree with non-voters is that voting is foolish. From my perspective, it doesn't take much time to look at candidates running for various offices and all levels of government and see if there is anyone who I feel is worth voting for. I voted for several people last week, but only one was a Democrat. Let's just say that I voted for a lot of Ents. I think that anyone hopeful enough to run for office is going to get served--to paraphrase the Wire--plenty of bowls of shit. But even if voting for said idealistic candidates is the equivalent of buying a lottery ticket in terms of "change," it takes me the same amount of time to get some groceries. It's not too much trouble. If I can hand someone a buck on the subway, I can vote.
More importantly, I think that if a person cares about our country and the way our country treats others--and I have little interest for people who don't--then simply "not voting" is not helping things. It's the same as a personal boycott for some product. It makes you feel good, but it's a tree falling alone in the woods. No noise. A protest of this sort needs to be part of an organized, vocal movement. Politicians need to clearly understand why people are not voting. Otherwise they think that non-voters are apathetic. That's not it: these non-voters are disgusted with the system as a whole. The system needs to be made aware of that (whether or not that will make a difference...well...).
Non-voters making their decision in isolation, or even just sharing their beliefs casually among friends, aren't doing much to help. They are just quitting, accepting that the Empire is going to fall, but failing to make any positive change within their lifetime. I simply can't relate to that. I get more out of a potentially hopeless battle than sitting back and watching things burn.
Barry, as far as the power/spiritual leader comment, I can't say that I agree. I do think that spiritual leaders who never asked for power get it and can often be uncomfortable with it.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:04am
#8
I'd rather
hear about your first kiss: http://www.olivejuicemusic.com/forum/2010/11/05/756
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:31pm
#9
Personally, I'd rather
Hear about what Ben and Barry have to say on this topic than about their first kiss. But that's me. This voter/nonvoter thing has been debated by this same group of people pretty much every year that there has been both an election and an OJ Board. But it still needs to be talked about.
As some people know, I'm not big on voting. I respectfully disagree with Barry on a number of things, including his vision of how society should be restructured, but I do agree with one of things he's pointing to here--voting does not allow you to fundamentally change the nature of this society. And I'll go a step further--electoral campaigns actually divert valuable time, energy, and even people's focus from what they need to be looking at. Voting makes people think they are doing something. And that outlook is encouraged by those people that want society to stay as it is. For instance, friends of mine who are activists in the Black community noted that there was a drop-off in local and national activism around civil rights issues as the Obama campaign gained steam 2 years ago, as people (especially young people) put their energy into that--and then a big drop off in activism after the election because, as many of them said, "now we've accomplished something."
I'm not one of those people who thinks that Republicans and Democrats are "just the same, who cares". I think Bill Maher made some good points in his critique of Jon Stewart. I think there is a 1932 Germany smell in the air right now. But how to combat that? Not by making sure Harry Reid stays in the senate. I know people are sick of hearing me say this, but the ending of the war in Vietnam, the few victories in the civil rights struggle, and even the legalization of abortion were not the result of any electoral process.
When the "iron curtain" still existed, people used to make fun of the elections in those countries because "everyone running in the elections was a communist". And we took the side of the dissidents who, among other things, refused to vote in those elections. Well, pretty much everyone running in the most recent US elections was a capitalist. And once again I'd have to side with the dissidents.
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:21pm
#10
What's the point?
I feel like we're talking about 2 different things. I never heard anyone say that just voting was going to make everything better. I agree that voting should be accompanied with discussions and actions, daily if possible, towards making this country the way you want it to be. I feel like we all probably would agree on at least 80% of what that should be.
If we're just talking about the single act of voting. I'll never understand how the simple act of not voting is ever going to change anything? Do you guys think we should do away with voting? I can't remember who said it but I believe in the statement that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." If there is a problem with the way voting is today do you have a better more realistic idea? I wouldn't mind hearing more about that. If you are a socialist or a anarchist or a libertarian or whatever thing bring it on let's discuss the issues. If you don't give a crap then I'm not really trying to hear that.
If you choose not to vote then to me is seems as though you've dropped out of the discussion politics? Which is fine but for me not so interesting. It's a bit like armchair quarterbacking. I'd rather talk about the issues at hand and how they evolve. The more I learn about particular elected officials the more I feel qualified to really comment. I believe that politics are very corrupt but I don't believe that all of them are crooks. If you believe in a black and white world then that's even more scary in my opinion. As with people there are a lot of shades of gray. For instance here is an interview form meet the press that reveals how much this Newly Elected Tea Party rep, despite his rhetoric, is really no different than his republican counterparts in his unwillingness to consider cutting largest gov. programs like SS and Medicare to lower the budget. Seems very contrary to the Tea Party slogan for smaller government.
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:21am
#11
I won't tire...
Tone said:
"I know people are sick of hearing me say this, but the ending of the war in Vietnam, the few victories in the civil rights struggle, and even the legalization of abortion were not the result of any electoral process."
I'll won't tire of hearing you say this. It needs to be said. People seem to forget it, soon after it leaves your mouth/fingers. I can only guess this is because it threatens their precious illusions of democracy (the U.S. Government is not and has NEVER been a true democracy) and the impact their vote has on the process.
I don't think voting is foolish, as a concept. I think voting in the current climate of the U.S. is foolish, if you expect it to change the way the current powers that be view the greater populace and thus how we are policed. We are peasants to them. Nothing more. Obama, McCain, Palin, possibly even Ron Paul. They ALL think you and I are FUCKING PEASANTS and could give a flying fuck what you care about. They exist for one purpose and one purpose alone. To perpetuate the institution and bureaucracy which they revere. I don't care what is "in their hearts." Their actions are the only things I can truly judge them by.
Quite honestly, in the grand scheme of things, Pell grants are not a right. They are a luxury and a tool of convenience, to be handed out or held back, depending on your political alignment and whose favor politicians are currying, at the moment. Are they beneficial, yes. Should they exist at all? If our society was working towards the eventual evolution of human kind, as would be in it's best interest...THEY WOULDN'T FUCKING NEED TO. Sadly, it is not. Voting, in this current climate, supports a system that is CLEARLY broken, AND gives it an air of legitimacy.
In the past, when I have spoken up, I got shouted down the loudest by WELL INTENTIONED LIBERALS. Please refer to my "debate", two years ago, with Dan F.. As it stands now, I feel quite comfortable in saying that nearly everything, if not everything, I said in those posts has come to pass. Yay me? No. A complete and total fucking failure of people, who should know better, to open up their eyes and really see what is happening around them.
Why the fuck were there baseball players testifying before Congress? How much money was spent on that? How much money goes into election campaigns? Why isn't that money being spent on a viable education system? Answer, the powers that be don't want an educated populace. They want a distracted populace. Now, view your precious elections from another point of view. How often are actual issues the deciding factors in elections?
If issues decided elections, Ronald Reagan would have NEVER become president. So many seem to forget that the phrase "voodoo economics" was coined by none other than ...George Bush, Reagan's chief opponent, in the republican primary.
Yet now, there's a fucking aircraft carrier bearing his name. Great.
Well, you all elected Obama. Good for you. You elected a fucking Chicago politician to the highest electable office in the land. Forgive me if I don't weep with joy. I do not trust ANYONE who desires power over others. Period. The low points of my career as a sound person have always come when I forgot that I was little more than a steward and servant of the person on stage, regardless of how good I was at my job on a technical level. Politicians are supposed to represent the will of the people.
You know, maybe they do represent the will of the people. The people have all but completely abdicated responsibility, in favor of electing savior figures, who they believe possess some incredible hidden knowledge that will allow them to magically fix our problems.
I am so frustrated, angry and disgusted right now. My heart is pounding and I think I may cry.
OPEN YOUR EYES. Stop the strawman arguments, the spouting of idealistic bullshit and grabbing at hot button issues. If a patient has a body riddled with cancer, does it matter if you can save a toe, if the brain and heart are going to be lost? GOOD FUCKING JESUS TAP DANCING CHRIST ON A STICK, WAKE UP.
Fucking people are addicted to government. Sickening.
That said, my reactions are as strong as they are, because you are my friends, peers, lovers and inspiration. I am disappointed and I expect better, in the future.
Okay, calmer. Now to address the "but not voting doesn't help" argument. This brings us full circle, to Tone's assertion.
Would it be wise of me to run to the top of the mountain and shout my message down? No, I'd get shot. At best, I'd get laughed off as a crackpot. Instead what I do, is try to communicate these ideas to people. People who *can* grasp what I am saying. Friends, neighbors and acquaintances who, to my dismay, still buy into supporting a system that has failed them and is, for all intensive purposes, in fact leading us down a path of global corporate fascism. Thinking that you will change an utterly corrupt system, using that very same corrupted system is, forgive me, naive at best, insanity and self delusion at worst, in my opinion. You are welcome to your own opinion. However, it *may* help to attempt to detach yourself from the system which inculcated your beliefs, and think about what is REALLY important.
Is the survival of democracy, a man made concept, more important than the evolution of the human race?
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:13pm
#12
Fff fff fff foolish.
I vote. I think it's important. I've been called a moron and now foolish for doing so from people that I thought were sort of friends? I'm trying to see how I could possibly engage in a substantive conversation with someone who is calling me a fool? I think my therapist would advise against it but well...I suppose its a process.
I don't see things as black and white as you do. I happen to think Obama has accomplished a great deal of good things. I think we are just as responsible for the failures of our government as he is.
It's easy to criticize. If you don't vote, how do you begin to measure your stake in the game? I know it's not a lot but it's a start. If you wanna do more then go for it. I'm still waiting for a better alternative? If you're not opposed to voting what kind of situation would we need to be in for you to put forward the effort to vote?
We just had a major power shift in this country with no incidents of violence or bloodshed. That's an amazing accomplishment. Look around the world. Maybe some people wanted bloodshed? I personally don't.
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:40pm
#13
All due respect
First, Matt you are my friend. I stated this quite clearly, I thought, in the post.
Second, nowhere did I call you foolish. Reread the post. Calling a single choice that someone makes "foolish" is NOT, calling that person a fool. You just put an ad hominem argument in my mouth, that I didn't make. I can live with that because, I know, in your case at least, that you do care and are doing what you think is best. I am disagreeing with you. Strongly, in this case, because I too care.
At this point, you see personal attacks, where there are none. That is a problem with your own perception. There is however, an incredible amount of frustration with, what I see, as a basic unwillingness to honestly address the shortcomings that the system you are advocating and abetting, perpetuates.
To clarify: If I see you punch yourself in the face, repeatedly, and I say, "Matt, stop punching yourself in the face. You are hurting yourself. And hurting yourself is a stupid thing to do." Am I calling you stupid? Or, am I saying what you are doing is stupid? Do you not see a difference? If you don't, then you are right, there is no reason to engage in further debate but, not for the reason you state.
Please address the points made in my post. Refute them using logic and I will concede, as any rational person should.
I used to vote. I used to vote because, especially for a person of color(hate that fucking phrase) I know that the right to vote was won with blood, sweat, tears and pain of many people who, kind of, in the most superficial way, look like me.
I think I can say, that I have been failed by this system(specifically the justice system) more than almost any other person on this board. I am coming from a position of having had ACTUAL DAMAGE done to me, by the system that is in place. I am not alone. I have been disenfranchised, by the very system you are championing, along with millions of others.
Tell me,now, why I should believe in this system? Why should I think it will begin to work now, if it hasn't been working, up to this point?
If a mechanical system fails, it is deconstructed. For a great number of reasons. First, to determine the cause of failure. Next, the question would be asked, is this the fault of a single faulty part within the mechanism or is it an overall design flaw?
Do you see where I am going with this?
I would challenge you to say that our current system isn't suffering from what will prove to be, should we all just keep on going in this direction, catastrophic system failure. Before you jump all over that last bit and call me chicken little, ask yourself if you think this country could really survive another financial swindle and bailout. Those are the results that this system produces and, it is BY DESIGN.
If I did hurt you, or it seemed like I was attacking you, I do apologize. I do consider you a friend and in fact do care what you think and, why? Because, in the past, you have proven yourself to be capable of objective reasoning, insofar as any human can be objective.
If my manner or tone upset you, I apologize and do accept responsibility for not being able to make my argument more palatable, to those who already disagree with me and seem unwilling, in my eyes, to consider other sides of the die.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:58am
#14
Thanks for you thoughtful response....
I'm out of town until Mon with limited internet so I don't have time to really read this thoroughly and respond. And I really want to! Bear with me until Monday. I love you Amos and I know it's all good.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:24pm
#15
I love you too
I was really angry after this whole near debacle but, it was all because I was hurt. I thought you just weren't giving any credence to my argument and were focused solely on my, admittedly provocative and aggressive tone. My point of view is often misconstrued and/or ridiculed, by friends, by strangers. It can get tiring to feel like I have to shout to be heard, even by those who would seem predisposed to hear me out. My experiences with our criminal justice system have only deepened my cynicism and mistrust of all governmental authority and subsequently I have noticed a tendency for me, to adopt a "take no prisoners" attitude. This can, obviously, be counterproductive.
Thank you Matt, for letting me know where you are at with this. It isn't my wish to create rifts, especially not with people who, I know, are keys to a possible solution. Many of these issues evoke strong feelings and I will pay special attention to my tone. I know that I can be most condescending and sarcastic and that really doesn't help, at all.
Hopefully, we can prove Barry wrong about the toxicity thing, and he too will be here to engage in open discussion. Though the intrawebz *can* degenerate into pointless ad hominem arguments, I believe we all respect each other enough, regardless of our differences, to engage in civil discussion.
And thank goodness for people like Costello, Tone and Jeannie, who help to calm down the "neurotic artist types". I'm also lookin' in your direction Ben, and yes, I am smiling. You sneaky, smart man you. Your daughter is very fortunate to have a father like you.
I'd like to take this time to apologize to anyone who may have felt belittled or attacked by me. Unfortunately, when I think about it honestly, that *may* have been one of my goals, subconscious or not. It really doesn't matter, as you can only judge my observable behaviors. This type of behavior is not a point of pride for me. While I stand by the arguments, the delivery system was sorely lacking and I do hope that "style" has seen it's last use. Unless I ever meet Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or any other jackbooted lunatic out there.
Then, I will most certainly be seeking to publicly expose, embarrass, and humiliate. I don't think it pays to observe normal rules of civil debate when engaged with those who are little more than tyrants. My mistake was in EVER casting you, my friends, in their role.
For that, I humbly and sincerely ask your forgiveness.
Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:41am
#16
Amos
First of all, thank you for your kind words regarding my posting in this forum. Given my present distance from everyone its nice to know I'm still a part of this scene and not forgotten. My next trip to NY I hope to see most of you guys cause man, I miss you all so very much!
Anyway, I'm glad you realize that due to your experience with the criminal justice system that you now take issue with our entire government. Sometimes it takes getting burned to open our eyes to the whole picture and not ignore the parts don't affect us.
Now stick with me here, I'm using examples to prove a point.
It used to be that Americans strived for what was referred to as "The American Dream". You know, the house with the white picket fence & the 2 cars in the driveway, 2.5 children, the whose supposed shebang. I had all that, found it didn't suit me, so I sold the house, moved south & took an early retirement. You know what? I found out that didn't suit me either. Well, selling the house & moving south did, but early retirement? Nah. Not me at all. I used to be a paralegal, but certain circumstances turned me off to the law so I started a new career as a pharmacy technician.
I gotta say though, down here in SC they are so anti-government involvement it shocks me. I'm about the only person I know who doesn't own at least 1 handgun, no one wears a helmet when on a motorcycle, which I personally think is just plain foolish, they get around the 2am bar curfew by making bars/clubs private & charging $1. dues (admission) so they can call it a private party & stay open 24/7 mostly I'm told is because its harder to get a DUI at 8am than 3am and the bands can play all night long, yet should you get caught with so much as 1 joint its 30 days in jail and all the taxes are so low that its no wonder the government, schools & libraries are broke. Its no surprise that giving to charity is such a big deal down here.
Now, as with your opinion of our criminal justice system, do I feel the system is broken? No. I do however feel its in dire need of some serious tweeking. Serious, serious tweeking!
I guess the point I was trying to make here is we, as American's, always think we know what it is we want/need in our lives. Until we get it that is. Once we get it we find a. oops, it wasn't what we wanted, or b. we thought it would be something other than what it is. The problem is we really don't know WTF we want! We just know it isn't what we got.
So, is it really the system that's flawed? Or is it the people?
Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:37pm
#17
Hi Jeannie!
I believe in giving credit where it is due. :)
I hope the following will make clearer, my point of view, in considering voting to have been rendered an all but ineffectual tool for change, given a corrupt, co-opted form of government.
I believe one of the problems lies in attempting to differentiate people from the system which they perpetuate. They are, at this point, for all intents and purposes, the same. The people comprise the system. The system does whatever it can to perpetuate itself. This includes inculcating a belief system that constantly reinforces the idea that our system of government*(this is what I am referring to when I say the system, it is an abbreviation, nothing more, I hope that is clear, from this point onward) is the best form of government to be implemented, to date. This is, in my opinion, a bald faced lie. How can I say this? Because, here in America and throughout the world, long standing successful governments have been eradicated, along with the people who maintained them. These forms of government existed for FAR longer than ours and were sustainable. Who are these mythical people I'm talking about? Choose any of the misleading names we have given them, which only serve to further marginalize them and their contributions to the human race. Call them Indians, call them Native Americans or call them indigenous peoples. Their system worked. Was it perfect? Was it always unanimous? Of course not. Did it work in a way that allowed people to thrive, in harmony with their environment? Yes. To argue otherwise would be, in my opinion, akin to denying that the sun has risen, if there are clouds in the sky and the light from it is obscured. If today, it was cloudy and, you couldn't see the sun, would you deny it's existence? That is essentially what we are doing when we say things like "democracy is the best system yet." People say this because it serves their purpose of seeking to maintain a particular ideology's dominance. It is the best system only because we have chosen to willfully ignore, marginalize or eradicate other systems.
While I never experienced it, information I have been exposed to leads me to draw parallels between our nation's current sociopolitical climate, with that of what was to become Nazi Germany. I imagine a great many Jews said things similar to what I am hearing here, before they were gradually dispossessed of everything, worldly goods, jobs, rights and eventually their very lives. How quickly we forget the lessons of the past, the injustices perpetrated by our government, against it's own people. Ordering the National Guard and Armed Forces to break strikes, Japanese internment camps, limiting the rights of citizens to the flashpoint of our debate, voting, limiting our rights to public assembly and protest.
Patriot Acts, Homeland Security. If we are so free, how is it that these things EVER came to pass? Why was it so easy, for so many, to buy into the notion of Iraq as possessing weapons of mass destruction and as directly linked to Al Queda? Why, when it was revealed that we were lied to, hasn't there been ANY accountability for those responsible for these most heinous of outright lies? Why when I ask that question, invariably, the answer I get is something along the lines of, "It would look very bad to prosecute a former president or members of his cabinet and/or administration"? How is it possible that in this day and age, citizens can still be held, incommunicado, without a hearing, in these United States, including in the very city in which most of you now reside? Why is it accepted that ANY government will engage in acts of espionage, as a matter of course? When will enough be enough? Will it be enough when your rights are further curtailed or altogether revoked, in the name of national security? When you are spied on for your personal or religious beliefs, or political affiliation? How about when you see them take your neighbor away? Does it really have to be knocking on our very own doors before we connect the all the dots?
A few more questions. Was Soviet Russia *really* a communist government? Is a Democracy really a democracy if the will of the people isn't heeded? If you call an apple an orange, is it really an orange?
Ask yourself if you really live in a democracy or if you live in an oligarchic plutocracy.
Neil, I find your post especially indicative of the difficulty in having real discourse on the internet. Your post is to me, dishonest. You ask, seemingly, honest questions, I assume, to establish some kind of base from which we can draw objective conclusions. I have talked with you, you seem a very smart man. To me, they are little more than thinly disguised rhetorical questions, designed to call into question my capability for rational thought. I don't blame you. It is an accepted and common tactic in our society. I think it is reprehensible. To be VERY clear, I do NOT think you are reprehensible. In fact, I quite like you. Rather what I think is reprehensible is that you have been taught to look askance at that which doesn't agree with either the popular or your own view. However, how could I not expect you to use the tools you have been taught to use? If this isn't/wasn't your intent, I do apologize, however, that is how I read it. Reading into it too much? Perhaps but, that is just one of the difficulties of non face to face communications.
At this time, it is my intent to no longer post on this forum, at least, in posts of this nature. "Keep it light" will be my new motto.
I will leave you with is this. Read alternate histories of our nation. You know, the ones that purposely aren't taught in schools. Read Zinn, read Chomsky. Visit Sybil Edmonds blog. They say it far better than I do. Though I doubt Zinn would advocate not voting, under any circumstances. :)
Look up H.R.645. It is just plain frightening.
This is Sybil Edmond's blog. She is the single most gagged person in this country's history, don't you want to know what she has to say? http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/
I refuse to say what I think should be done, because it is my belief that I would *poof* cease to exist. Paranoid? Maybe. But, I won't stand up without SOME kind of support system. I have done that in the past. I lost nearly everything dear to me. NEVER AGAIN. When you are ready, hopefully, I'll still be around. I have no desire whatsoever to be a martyr for any cause, especially when some of the very people who would have me, by my actions, make myself vulnerable to groups with no discernable accountability or oversight, attempt to vilify or marginalize me.
With that, I bid you all peace on your individual journeys. I hope they lead you to a greater degree of honesty and understanding of both yourself and your fellow human beings.
Fare thee well, Amos.
* I mean the practical, day to day, observable reality, not the ideal.
Sat, 11/13/2010 - 6:34pm
#18
Hey Amos!
I agree with you, to a certain degree, that their have been better forms of government than ours with respect to "in a way that allowed people to thrive, in harmony with their environment", but only to a certain extent. The big problem, as I see it, with their type of government was it allowed others to take full advantage of them & take away their freedoms, their lands, heck, basically their way of life. Not good! Their government didn't protect them at after all now did it?
I think maybe our government took a good look at how those types of governments were taken advantage of and strives a little too hard not to allow history to repeat itself where it comes to our America.
*sidenote - the Native American tribes that still exist today, while maintaining their own government with their own laws & rules as recently as last year on LI had such a problem governing themselves and with regard to crime that they asked local law enforcement to intercede*
Anyway, I do agree with you that I do see many similarities between what was Nazi Germany in the late 1920's & 1930's and America today & it scares the bejesus out of me. All this America, America, we're #1 & lets get 'em, 'em being everyone who isn't America.
Seems everyone in this once great nation of ours wants snap judgments & decisions that will fix all our woes in the wink of an eye & let the chips fall where they may, as long as they fall in someone else's backyard. We *American's in general* are a very lazy people, one of the reasons we now find ourselves in the mess we're now in. We do not manufacture anything, we buy, buy, buy though! Toys made in China, electronics made in Korea, heck, even Harley Davidson can no longer claim they're made in America anymore. Yet we still consider ourselves the greatest nation on the planet! Umm... ya think? And we're all so willing to place the blame on others, its the Japanese's fault for underpricing us & building better cars than Detroit, its the banks fault for giving out all those loans *BTW, does anyone realize that all that bailout money has been already repaid by the banks*
So whose fault is it that we're in this mess & our country has gone to hell in a handbasket? George W Bush's? Barack Obama's? The republicans? The democrats? The voters? Heck no, its you, its me, its the American people! Its all our faults for going on with our daily lives & letting someone else do the dirty work for us.
I've said it before & I'll say it till I take my last dying breath. If you truly want to see a change, then get out there & make it happen! Get involved, sign up, join up, get out there & get your voice heard. Voting alone does nothing.
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 1:29pm
#19
Okay
Jeannie, the lack of native culture's success against enemies does not invalidate the argument that our current form of government may NOT be the best form of government. It merely illustrates the failure of the former in what is, essentially, a contest. Do you think that germ warfare is an acceptable tactic, in any situation? That was just one tactic used by our military and, by extension, our government to kill native peoples. Does the fact that they and their leaders never considered using a tactic such as this indict their whole government as ineffective or invalid? I think it does the exact opposite. I think it indicts our government as amoral and reprehensible. But, we had the bigger stick, gun, more devious minds and never forget, we violated nearly every, if not every treaty ever made with native society.
If the Nazi's had won World War II, would that mean theirs was the best form of government? The fact that they didn't is immaterial. They outright defeated and subjugated a number of countries. Does this mean they were "better" than Poland? At war perhaps but, what it really means is that they had an agenda and did what was necessary to achieve their goal. Only a concerted effort of unified nations stemmed the seemingly overwhelming tide of Nazi militarism.
It is my contention that we are past the point of voting as an effective tool for change. This is because those in power no longer, if they ever did, see themselves as servants of the people. They, with a few notable exceptions, see themselves as a kind of royalty. Their power comes, chiefly from economic power. A man made and almost wholly illusory concept. Thus it is clear to me that the battle shouldn't be waged with votes. The battle should be fought with money. Or rather, the withholding of money. There are those who are refusing to pay taxes, until such time as we end wars, started under, at best, false pretenses. If this tactic was to spread, I could see at least two possibilities. The first would be the desired result of withdrawal of troops from what are, after all, sovereign nations. The other would be martial law and a whole lot of people living (and surely dying) in the camps provided for by H.R.645. Please remember, our government is by no means above jailing it's own citizens, without probable cause. For a recent example, talk to anyone who spent time in jail, due to their involvement in protests directed towards the RNC. Freedom of whatnow? Right to public huh? Right.
I refuse to think of you as someone who would point to military victory as a validation of policy.
The tax withholding thing is one tactic. I don't know if it is one I would undertake personally but, then I don't have two fuckin' dimes to rub together anyway. :)
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:55pm
#20
I Think You Misunderstood What I Was Saying..
Which is so very easy when reading on a message board & not hearing the person's voice.
While at times we were at war with Native America, there were times we entered into treaties with them while we were on "friendly" terms. You know, gimme your lands & I'll put your people on this nice reservation..... *sighs*
Notwithstanding any of the debates taken place in this thread, I have to ask, so..... what's the solution? Not paying taxes? Bullshit way to go about it. Does nothing as you'd never get enough folks to play along cause they'd be too afraid of the consequences on every level, like no more police, fire, EMS, education, money for the poor programs, etc., chance of jail, & the government will just borrow what they feel they need to fund the wars, as they do now.
There has to be a better, workable solution. If only someone would come up with one.
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 12:52am
#21
These folks have some ideas...
Maybe you've seen it, maybe you haven't.
100% guaranteed not to contain a single ad for FoxNews. :)
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:26am
#22
On a lighter note, let's see
On a lighter note, let's see if we can make this replies so narrow that they disappear!
In a way it's kind of brilliant: keep these message board threads short and concise or else you will be clushed like a leetle glape!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:25am
#23
On a lighter note, let's see
On a lighter note, let's see if we can make these replies so narrow that they disappear!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:27am
#24
Three-pee-O? Shut down all
Three-pee-O? Shut down all the garbage compactors on the detention level!!!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:28am
#25
Three-pee-O??!?!? Three-pee-O
Three-pee-O??!?!? Three-pee-O di you copy?!?!?! SHUT DOWN ALL THE GARBAGE COMPACTORS ON THE DETENTION LEVEL!!!!!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:30am
#26
C-3PO: We've had some
C-3PO: We've had some problems...
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:31am
#27
Luke: [interrupting] Will you
Luke: [interrupting] Will you shut up and listen to me! Shut down all the garbage smashers on the detention level, will ya? Do you copy? Shut down all the garbage smashers on the detention level! Shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:31am
#28
C-3PO: [to R2-D2] No! Shut
C-3PO: [to R2-D2] No! Shut them *all* down, hurry!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:31am
#29
[R2 shuts down the
[R2 shuts down the compactors]
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:32am
#30
Luke: What? HAHA! Hey, you
Luke: What? HAHA! Hey, you did it 3PO!
[Luke, Leia and Han start laughing hysterically; it sounds like screaming]
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:32am
#31
C-3PO: Listen to them,
C-3PO: Listen to them, they're dying R2! Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough, it's all my fault! My poor Master.
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:33am
#32
Luke: 3PO, we're all right!
Luke: 3PO, we're all right! We're all right! Ha ha! Hey, open the pressure maintenance hatch on unit number... where are we? 3263827!
Thu, 11/18/2010 - 11:36am
#33
Sorry Matt
I mean, once I started I just HAD to see what would happen.
Now this looks like one of Diane's posts!
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 9:21am
#34
What does it all mean Mr.
What does it all mean Mr. Natural?
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 9:13pm
#35
Letting this one go.
I can't follow this kind of logic. Take care man. Hope you're able to find a bit of the light.
Sun, 11/14/2010 - 10:34pm
#36
Lots of understandable anger
Lots of understandable anger here, Amos.
One thing about the Native Americans, though. The lifestyle of some tribes was not necessarily sustainable...this is why they were often involved in endemic warfare. When resources ran out, one tribe would invade another territory. It's human nature.
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:03pm
#37
Hmmm
IF this isn't a thinly veiled shot at my capacity for rational thought, I think this speaks far more about you than it does about my argument.
As you must be aware, there are no "kinds" of logic. There is logic or there is fallacy. Can we at least agree on that?
To suggest that my logic is fallacious, without offering counter arguments, suggests a number of things. None of them reflect well upon you.
As I have nothing to gain from attacking your intellect or capacity for logical thought, I took no pleasure, whatsoever from writing this. In fact, I wrote it with what is, increasingly, a heavy heart.
I will indeed take care. You do the same.
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 2:36pm
#38
No offense meant dude...
I respectfully tried to address you points in an orderly fashion as you requested. You ignored my counter arguments and went on to express your opinions about other things. This exchange, in my opinion, stopped being logical a long time ago. I'm sure we could spend a lot of time debating logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) but I think it would just continue to make me feel sad and crummy which is why I'm opting out.
Tue, 11/16/2010 - 10:16pm
#39
I am glad you are my friend
Matt, my apologies. I believe that you are a good and decent person. I don't believe you'd intentionally do harm to ...well anything really. I don't want you to feel sad or crummy. Sad, crummy feeling people aren't nearly as awesome as when they are happy. And you are pretty awesome.
Voting certainly does no overt harm, especially on the local level. If you believe voting is something you need to do, then you should definitely do it. I really do wish we could have had this ...discussion over a joint and some nachos. I bet it would've gone much differently.
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 12:52am
#40
That sounds nice!
The board is a very tricky way to communicate. I've learned that it is very easy for people to take things the wrong way. I've been on both sides of that. One has to be very very careful with words here which is hard especially when you're talking about something you feel passionately about. For me it helps to try and be as simple and specific as possible. I'm sure that we would find a great deal of common ground if we just chilled out together. And whether I agree with you or not I always appreciate you chiming in and stirring the pot. You are always welcome here. Please don't be a stranger. : )
Mon, 11/15/2010 - 3:25pm
#41
dishonest?
I don't think there was anything dishonest about my post.
I apologize if it seems like I was setting a trap for you. I wasn't. I only meant to encourage you to fully flesh out your argument.
Statements like, "the system is broken." Or "voting never accomplishes anything." Or "the two parties are exactly the same," have no meaning to me. Too general and simplistic. I don't think I am being dishonest by expecting you to be able to explain yourself.
Wed, 11/17/2010 - 1:23am
#42
Fair enough.
I am not sure that I ever made those particular statements but, I do understand what you are saying and will concede to having made similar statements. I hope some of the posts I made after responding to the 'questions' post were helpful in clarifying my positions.
I just wish you guys were all out here so we could do the joint and nachos thing talking thing, in a truly beautiful, relaxed setting. Seriously, beautiful out here.
Fri, 11/12/2010 - 6:03pm
#43
I had some time in Hudson....
Here are some logical responses for you.
I think I can say, that I have been failed by this system(specifically the justice system) more than almost any other person on this board.
I feel for you man but this is a huge generalization, impossible to prove.
I am coming from a position of having had ACTUAL DAMAGE done to me, by the system that is in place. I am not alone. I have been disenfranchised, by the very system you are championing, along with millions of others.
Another generalization. I don't know the the specifics of what you are talking about when you are wronged and I've got a feeling neither of us really want to get into it right. I don't doubt that you have experienced injustice. And I'm sorry about that but it seems like the connection between that injustice and my desire to vote seems convoluted. I think I could make an equally strong argument that those who didn't vote could be just at responsible for that injustice.
My problem is when people talk in generalities, using words like "the System" (I know I do it too sometime but I still don't think it's right.) to describe everything that is basically wrong with this country or specifically their life and how it relates to it. What system are you talking about? The judicial system? Democracy? The NYPD? No doubt there a problems with all of them. But it is my opinion that these problems lie more with the people that work within them, not "as much" the system's themselves. And when we refuse to no at least make an attempt at monitoring them or at least try to support those that do then they become more susceptible to corruption. The best way in my opinion at this point is through voting.
If a mechanical system fails, it is deconstructed. For a great number of reasons. First, to determine the cause of failure. Next, the question would be asked, is this the fault of a single faulty part within the mechanism or is it an overall design flaw? Do you see where I am going with this?
Yes I see where you are going. My main issue is that mechanical systems work according to some usually very measurable laws of physics. And people don't always. For me to have a proper conversation, I need to know what system you are talking about. If you are talking about capitalism then I agree that capitalism is not a sustainable form of government. I agree that it is a flawed system that in not meant to sustain human societies forever. I believe that a form of socialism is much more evolved way for "First World" countries to operate under. And yes it seems to be the way things are going. Think about how often we've been just hearing the word in the news lately.
If you are talking about Democracy then I disagree with you. I think if you look back at history, eventually, more people are better off in a democratic society. But a big part of the world is still getting there. Even though it may look like we are personally doing worse off than our parents at the moment, and the US is losing some of it's Super Power status, I think the general quality of life around the world for people is getting better all the time. Even though I don't support the wars in the middle east and how they came about I do think the by products of a democracy (equal rights, more freedoms) will prove to be better for those societies in the end.
I would challenge you to say that our current system isn't suffering from what will prove to be, should we all just keep on going in this direction, catastrophic system failure
I respectfully disagree. Look are not great right now for a lot of people in this country. There is a lot of stress. I think it's an important time of reflection. But I also think that the country is suffering from a lot fairly typical generic scare tactics that politicians use to get people to vote for them. I don't wanna get all "older and wiser" on you but when I was a kid it was the 80's. And we were told every day that there was some crazy Russian with his finger on a button just waiting to drop a million nuclear warheads on us if we didn't vote for the right person. Now noone even fucking thinks about that anymore. Turns out most of it was just a sham to continue voting for the people that get rich from making the bombs.
I don't wanna sound like there aren't things to be concerned with but in the end I think giving up hope and on things like the system of voting is exactly what people who have something to gain from having less liberal minded people vote like yourself want.
Respect Amos. Hang in there.
Love, MMM
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:04pm
#44
Oh God, not DeMitt! My choice
Oh God, not DeMint! My choice was between him & Alvin Greene. Any wonder why people don't vote? Why bother? Greene didn't stand a chance in Hell, thankfully, and DeMint is a jackass.
Yes, I voted for Greene, not because I wanted him to win cause I sure did not, but it was my way of sending a message to whoever, if anyone, was listening. I'd be amazed if anyone was listening.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:01am
#45
A Piece on Voting/Politics
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/nov/07/dems-party-on-life-support/
The article will explain why 1 party control isn't a good thing, why it makes people not vote.
Best part: "And we've got to hold the Republicans accountable. They're in charge. Every time Nikki Haley says, 'I want to take government back,' we need to say, 'Hold on! Time out! You (Republicans) have got everything!' "
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:12am
#46
Well, actually there are:
Well, actually there are: Independent, Green Party , Libertarians, Family values, "The Rent's Too Damn High" Party. The only thing that gives these people political power are votes. And republican's don't have everything. Democrats still have the senate and Obama is still president. Now Mitch Mconnell is saying that nothing can get done in government until they elect a Republican President in 2012. Doesn't sound like a multiple party attitude. If you voted for a republican then this is what you voted for. If you didn't vote then you did nothing to show our elected officials that you disagree with this attitude.
Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:51pm
#47
I think the point I was
I think the point I was trying to make is that sure, there are some issues that the two parties "disagree" on, but on some crucial issues, the ones that probably affect the United States on the grandest scale in terms of our relations with other nations, imperialistic tendencies and the unhealthy partnerships with corporate interests, I see little significant difference between the two parties. There are times when I think the two parties are misleadingly arguing on the same side of an issue. Iraq for example. There are hawks on the Republicans side who probably wanted to keep combat troops in the country. Obama's stance? Pull the combat troops out and leave 50,000 peace-keeping troops to fight alongside Iraq forces in anti-terrorist activities. To the Iraqi people, does this come across as a significant difference of approach?
Even gays in the military. We are arguing about whether or not gays can fight effectively alongside straight troops. Of course they can. But both sides are still dodging the question of whether we should be deploying troops into certain situations at all. The issue of civil liberties for gay troops is important, but if they are just being shipped overseas to stomp on the liberties of foreign combatants and civilians, are we missing the bigger picture about what is going to ensure a healthy, stable future for our country?
Simply put: Does a father in Yemen care if his child was shot by a straight or gay trooper?
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:18pm
#48
Reply-Comment-Contact Info
This is a paste from an older post of mine:
Do I believe Bee K and Matt are morons?
I would say they are if they believe my life is deficient and lacking importance for not voting.
MMM, that is different from calling you a moron for voting.
My karma is not the same as yours.
Only you know if it's right for you to vote.
I know it's right for me not to.
"I don't think voting is foolish, as a concept." Quote by Amos
I do not like the idea of voting under any circumstances.
If I were in a band it would be unanimous decision or I'd know that I was working with the wrong folks.
It is my duty to follow my heart irregardless of what others decide is right.
Anything else is an act of direct violence.
Religion and politics are based on taking the easy way out.
It does not really work.
Turning within is the hard and right way to make a decision.
PS I have dropped way off on internet use and upped the letter writing and hopefully the face to face conversations.
These machines are toxic, their infrastructure is unsustainable and ecologically damaging, and third party corporations are involved.
I am fine with conversing in person and as a step---my mailing address is Barry Bliss P.O. Box 1652 NY NY 10276
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:59pm
#49
Barry, I hear ya. In this
Barry, I hear ya.
In this scenario, I assume you are talking about decisions that affect the band. Say you guys have a choice of two venues to play. Playing one will preclude the ability to play at the other. How do you decide?
Surely not by some form of psychic communication. You would discuss it, with each of you saying what they, initially, want to do. If, at first, there was unanimous agreement, terrific. No problem. What if one or two people want to do something other than the majority? What if opinions are evenly split? You have to talk about it. That talk would be, in this case, a lot like the debate process seen before elections (but, hopefully much more constructive and less adversarial) to be followed by voting. You'd say why you wanted to do one thing , someone else would say why they wanted to do another. Then, you would all have to come up with a choice that furthers your goal, as a group, the most. If you, as an individual, disagree with the majority decision, it is certainly within your rights to remove yourself from that group but, I don't see how that would further your goals, as a group.
Compromise is a part of group dynamics. Unanimity is a very difficult thing to achieve, all the time.
P.S. Look forward to some post cards from me, in the future. :)
Wed, 11/10/2010 - 4:01pm
#50
There's a lot here but
I'm not in the vote/don't vote fight. I personally feel compelled to vote and think that my ballot helps in local races, where it counts most - also voting third parties like Working Families whose mission I appreciate. Diana Reyna has a lot more of an effect on my life than Obama does. Only one of them provides support for the Bushwick Food Coop.
I can say that the NYS governor's election in 1994 and the Newt takeover in 1996 had an incredible effect on my teenage years, and the a decade of my family life. Don't say that Pell grants, while not an entitlement - don't matter just to the students who receive them - think of the teachers of those students, too.
I don't know if the system is broken but clamoring on the OJ Board isn't gonna fix it - and while A is gonna be called loony for calling from the tops of mountains, B is gonna be called loony for moving to the south or the west and C is gonna be idealistic and thus loony to some, While D's tenets seem both wise and isolated and maybe E's loony too.. F's gonna feel attacked and offended and G's gonna play devil's advocate just because. H walks along and says see all this discourse, this is Democracy, how can you say it isn't? J walks into a bar and can count his change real fast, no more unemployment checks, says pour me a beer, oh yeah, it's election day? I forgot.
Being in a band is a lot different than being a voting-age American. People aren't usually born into being in a band and the systems it employs. But I also understand your point Barry. Though it seems to me that if ten members of the OJ board can have such differing opinions, how could we possibly imagine a unanimous American viewpoint? We don't pick our fellow citizens like we pick our drummers or our friends.
Jeff's original post about voting for change really to me, falls under DOING SOMETHING for change. For a lot of people that something is Voting. But I like the idea of ACTIVELY not voting, if you really think the system is broken. And since I think that the majority of non-voting Americans don't vote out of general apathy (and lack of education but you might think that's wrong, I don't) and not out of principle, I think it's fair to ask the actually awarely disenfranchised to speak up if they want anything to get better.
Do something. And if you don't like what someone else is doing, do something else. Louder. Typing is silent and I'm proving my own freaking point here. As this thought falls flat on a monitor screen.
Amos - you're a great sound engineer. Always happy to have you around. Miss ya!
"Here to do great things."