Election Eve Special...
...and now it's on to Chicago and let's win the election."
Robert Kennedy
Last public words
June, 1968
11/6/2006
Tomorrow is mid-term Election Day and, if you have read any of my other postings on this blog, you could probably guess who I am voting for and to reiterate my position would be “preaching to the choir.”
But, and this is the beauty of the internet, over the past few years I seem to have picked up a few readers who somewhat disagree with my basic political point of view. With that in mind, to illustrate my thoughts on the current state of affairs, I will take a different path.
Instead of mentioning the complete mismanagement of intelligence and resources leading to the attack on the World Trade Center, the loss of New Orleans and the invasion of Iraq.
Instead of harping on the implementation of sanctioned torture, the suspension of habeas corpus and the establishment of a concentration camp system.
Instead of pointing to the fiscal irresponsibility and the continued rape of our treasury which is going to cause the next generation to live in economical oblivion.
Instead of making the observation about the consistent vilification of science for the idealization of magic hampering both the medical and the social evolution of the human being.
Instead of remarking on the rampant hypocrisy of Gay Bashing/Family Values clowns who make the world a worse place to live by day with firebrand sermons demonizing homosexuals but, when the lights go down, partake in all night, “Ice” fueled ass-fucking sessions with paid male-whores.
Instead of suggesting that the consolidation of the media and news gathering services, a situation that gives a wide national audience to fat jerks who spend their air time preaching intolerance and compassionless vengeance and their free time high on any narcotic they can get their hands on…from NyQuil to OxyContin.
All of which has happened under Republican leadership.
No, instead of mentioning any of that, I just want to refer to an incident that happened almost 200 years ago.
In the beginning of 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte, having been defeated by a united anti-French coalition, was in exile on the Mediterranean island of Elba. The Emperor of France and would be ruler of all of Europe whose edicts and orders which, at one time, became international law who now found himself in humbled disgrace, barking out orders to anyone who would listen. At his command, instead of the half a million man Grand Armée which he led to stunning victories all across the continent a decade earlier, was a small private guard of one thousand obeying every order with their trademark elan. Their enthusiasm must have felt like a mockery to the little corporal who still held onto his earlier delusions of grandeur.
Despite of Napoleon’s tethered state, or maybe because of it, he decided not to go quietly. He left his island prison, accompanied by his small but extremely loyal armed force and set sail for the south of France. His goal was to take back his Empire. An empire, that he could not accept, was already lost forever.
He landed on the mainland in March of 1815 and immediately began to march towards Paris which, by then, was controlled by the restored monarchy. When his small force, which was slightly bolstered by volunteers who joined along the way, reached the town of Grenoble, they were confronted by the 5th Regiment, a combat hardened veteran unit sent by King Louis XVIII to capture Napoleon and squelch any resistance.
As the story is told, when the two forces finally faced each other in the field, Napoleon ordered the newly outlawed Revolutionary Tri-Color flag to be raised. With his troops outnumbered and outgunned, he rode out into the middle of field… alone. Upon reaching the middle, he opened his coat and spoke directly to the opposing firing line:“If any man would shoot his Emperor, he may do so now.”
And no one did.
Have any of the fearless leaders of today, the ones who speak of “honor” and “strength” shown anything near this kind of leadership? In the Republican created environment of loyalty oaths, free speech zones and state/corporate run media, can you think of one…just one…of these assholes, the ones who have been telling you to hate or to be afraid for the last six years, who would have the political will or the fearlessness of conviction to put their own ass on the line?
The Republicans have been running the show for six years. If you like what has been going on (The War, The Consumer Debt, The Overspending, The Ass Slamming) then vote for them…because you are going to get more of the same. When you vote for men who can’t take responsibility for their own failures, you will get a society that is full of failures, both material and spiritual.
I urge you to vote Democrat across the board. I honestly don’t care who the candidate is.
In the reality of a two-party system, there is no place else to turn.
The stakes are too high.
Larry
posted by Larry B | 3:54 PM
11 Comments:
larry, pleased to tell you i'll be voting against senator "macaca" come tomorrow morn. aaah. my morning coffee just started tasting better.
God bless you.
"...can you think of one…just one…of these assholes, the ones who have been telling you to hate or to be afraid for the last six years, who would have the political will or the fearlessness of conviction to put their own ass on the line?"
Ok, so they have been telling people to hate or to be afraid, and so on over the past six years, so what? It's the same ol' swan song that you're saying...totally equating the voting public as being so stupid that they automatically believe everything they hear. People make their own choices in life, but if one was to believe what you are saying, it's once again blaming everything else instead of blaming oneself for what they do. Give people some sense of intelligence instead of blaming the "republican machine" for making people feel the way they do. If such was true, as you state, then human beings are all "robots," listening and believing all that they hear, not being able to think on their own. But, if one was to think this way, it appears that it is the people who vote republican who are the robots, but if they vote democratic, then they are self-thinkers. It can't be had both ways, but, from what you say, that doesn't matter anyway, as you tell your readers to vote democratic no matter who the candidates are. But, politics is politics, and the way that things are being reported already today, (almost as soon as the polls were open), the dems are setting things up so that if they do lose and don't take control of the Congress, it's all going to be about voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc. Talk about someone not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of an election. Let's see, once again, if some of the dems hold true and actually resign from their seats should they not take control of the Congress. It was the last presidential election that the same rhetoric was spewed forth, that there was no way that Bush would defeat Kerry, and we all know what that outcome was. And, as did occur back then, once this election is over, and should the democrats not be successful in thier over-confident bid to take control of the Congress, it'll be the same staus quo type of talking, politicing, etc. Let the "better" man win...whichever Party it is...
As for the "talking points" you mention that you said you wouldn't mention, (hubris I know), the same, if not equal, more, or less, can be written about what also occurs when democrats are in control.
Such bitterness coming from one human being. It must be a really rough life, surviving on a daily basis, having so much bitterness contained within onself.
God Grant Me the Serenity
To Accept the Things I Cannot Change
Courage to Change the Things I Can
And The Wisdom to Know the Difference
“The Serenity Prayer.” Yes, it is has been quoted countless times before making the words almost a cliché. But this passage still contains massive truth, and directly applies to your comment.
Robots, no. Sheep, maybe.
After all, doesn’t Christian imagery, the dominant culture in our country, continually describe human beings as “a flock” or “God’s children” in need of “His guidance”? Who do you think are the group of voters, usually in blocks, who tipped the scales for the Republicans these last six years? Who do you think the target audience of these truly revolting attack ads and commercials are? It is not a conspiracy; Rove has always been open about that.
So, what is someone to do if they find themselves in a society where election after election are won because a group of people champion a set of “conservative values” derived solely from their personal religious beliefs? “Values" that if implemented deprive a portion of the citizenry their basic human rights? In our system, where two parties vie for “all-or-nothing” status every two years, you can vote for the other group. And if you really give a shit about the general human condition...as compared to just your own personal situation...you can also try to urge anyone you come into contact with to do the same.
I think that is accepting the things I cannot change (this horrendous two party system) and changing the things I can (my own personal vote as well as stating my case). What else can I do? Take to the streets with a band of hooligans and hotheads with pikes and pitchforks demanding justice?
I suppose I could just shut up.
But that ain’t going to happen as long as I’m alive.
It sounds like you like the two-party system or, at least feel as if criticism of such is invalid. You do not feel that it needs to be reformed? How can a bi-partisan dialogue exist when one party controls everything? Why would the controlling party negotiate with or even listen to the minority party?
When I was growing up it was the common perception that on election day “Republicans prayed for rain.” Why? Because registered Democrats were the majority (and still are I think) and large voter turnout would be a drawback to the minority party. So, you may ask yourself, under these conditions how could any Republican win? If every Republican voted Republican and the Democrats did likewise, Republicans still wouldn’t have enough votes. They must have convinced some Democrats to vote for them while they all “fell in line.” Reagan especially excelled at this.
When a Republican talks “Bi-Partisanship,” which they all were this campaign year trying to run away from the reality of an incredibly unpopular Administration, it is because he has to, not because he wants to. The last five years have proved that.
I think voting “the party line,” a brand new feeling in my emotional lexicon, flat out stinks. But, I am given no choice. Maybe one day we will have some sort of Parliamentary government where plurality forces the representative leaders to be more flexible. A type of government where third and fourth parties would have a base to influence general policy so people, such as myself, do not feel disenfranchised every election as one buffoon after another gets up behind a podium and mockingly uses the term “American People” when describing their cocoon like existence of lobbyists, insiders and underage pages.
But until that day I am voting against the Republican Party, because they were given the keys to the kingdom in 2001, and they have been shoving them up working people’s asses ever since.
By the way, for the record, I am a registered Independent.
This has been the worst Administration in this union’s history, hands down. A Democrat controlled anything has never equalled this situation.
Thanks for the comments!
"And if you really give a shit about the general human condition...as compared to just your own personal situation...you can also try to urge anyone you come into contact with to do the same." "Urging" anyone you come into contact with to do the same, is the same thing with these Born Again Christians and others like them who, upon seeing someone in the street, start talking to them and tries to "push" their religous thinking on them. And for the most part, it is these people who are never listened to, instead they are brushed aside as being fanatics with their religion. Isn't what you're saying that since you care so much about the "human condition" of the general population, that you will start "preaching" to whomever you can, in trying to get them to "believe" in the way your beliefs are? So, "preach" to the people, try to get them to believe what you believe in, instead of allowing the people to make their own decisions about their beliefs. Granted, let me not sound negative towards what you are espousing, as it is clearly my understanding that what you are saying is that you will "preach" to whomever you "think" is listening to you, with the hopes that you will "enlighten" them as to your way of thinking. When you make the statement, "And if you really give a shit about the general human condition...as compared to just your own personal situation...you can also try to urge anyone you come into contact with to do the same," it is the same thinking that the "bible thumpers" have when they are on the street corners, in the subways, and other places, seemingly talking out loud to themselves, trying to "convert" the masses.
"I think voting “the party line,” a brand new feeling in my emotional lexicon, flat out stinks. But, I am given no choice." The exact opposite of your thinking on this one. You ARE given a choice, but it seems you are "hiding" behind the auspices of having no choice, hence the ability to "blame" the system on giving you no choice. The responsibility lies within oneself, and there is no one holding a gun to one's head, thereby making them decide between one of two political parties. Obviously you can refrain from voting altogether, but, from what you seem to be saying, if you were to do this, then you would say that you are denying yourself the "basic human right," and that is the "basic human right" to vote. Or you can always say that since you are given no "choice," your "basic human right" to vote is being denied to you. The latter, obviously, would be a ridiculous statement to make.
"This has been the worst Administration in this union’s history, hands down. A Democrat controlled anything has never equalled this situation." I beg to differ with you on this statement. You would be far lost to prove that a democrat controlled "anything" has never equalled this type of "situation." So untrue of a statement, but, far be it to try to argue this point, as one can clearly see that anything republican is astoundingly "atrocious" to you.
And so be it...
Wow....that was a whole lot of quotations. :) Whew. Okay. Well, first things first. Anonymous, you responded to Larry's last statement with lightening speed, so you are proof enough that there are people who are listening (even people you may strongly disagree with the beliefs held by the author of this blog.)
The path towards human enlightenment and intellectual growth is paved through communication and discourse; this decision to embark into a bilateral or multilateral discussion (as is the case here) inherently contradicts the action of those engaged in troglodytic jargon (i.e. subway preachers) aimed at people who are more interested in reading about 'Britney Spears' in the 'New York Post.'
As Eleanor Roosevelt famously articulated, "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." I'm not a Born Again Christian, nor do I intend on ever becoming a Born Again Christian, but they can talk their talk. And I can choose to walk away from that talk. My choice is, of course, to not let what they say about my religious affiliations affect me or make me feel like less of a human being, because I am not some sort of carbon copy. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you have experienced (or at least you will, now that the Dems have won the House) in politics it's not always so easy to walk away from that talk. The decisions made by politicians directly affect the constituents of this country.
The very principle of the “beliefs as boundary systems” prevents any one party from reaching a severe level of extremism. Revolving around a desire for politics to operate in order to solve the inevitable problems of coordination among differing individuals or groups, American pluralism attempts to maintain the virtue of “tolerance.” With its multiple levels, each with a distinct nature and foundation, human life, itself, is a consistent idealogical tug-of-war; but pluralism rejects any account of political community that creates hierarchical ordering. Sometimes the reigning party can, understandably, get a little out of hand. Republicans have had hegemony within congress for a very long time, how can there not be any level of hierarchical ordering? The very concepts of Majority v. Minority revolve around hierarchical ordering. So after years and years of the Republican Party dominating the decisions made in this glorious Republic, the time has now come for the rest of America to let their voice be heard with the glimmer of hope that the country will finally listen to them. There is a hope that the extreme measures taken by neo-conservative politicians, who have consistently hovered so steadily above the boundary wall of their party, may be moderated and attuned to the remainder of us Americans who do not share their idealogical viewpoints.
Mr. Anonymous, it's a pity that you are so over-protective of your politicians and your "party." The one thing that you can always count on them for is their ability to misrepresent. As a constituent you should question the ruling party, as well as the politicians representing you from your own party. The author, of this blog, has questioned them from the very genesis of this treatise and has demanded (wonderfully scathing, at times) proper representation & decision-making from various politicians, despite their personal alliances. The beauty of it all, though, lies in our freedom to disagree. Because without that? The “United” States of America would remain strictly Republican for the duration of our time on earth.
Hooray for the Democrats!
Peace,
E
By the way, key Democratic campaign issues were as follows: 1) to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, 2) set a timetable regarding Iraq, 3) enact the 9/11 commission, 4) the funding of stem cell research, 5) reconstruction of the Medicare drug plan, 6) tax breaks, in order to keep jobs with the United States-versus outsourcing them to other countries, & of course 7) to increase student loans. Let's do our best as active & concerned constituents to make sure these issues are pursued!
Peace,
E
7th on the list of postings from anonymous, Very well written. Kudos to you.
Now the the democrats have control of both the House and the Senate, (which, by the way, was not a landslide by any means, and definitely not a strong mandate. Both words should be looked up in Webster's for the correct meanings. This is not directed at you, 7th anonymous poster), one can almost be assured that there really won't be many changes between the swearing in of the new Congress, and the year 2008. And the reason for this is due to the political aspirations of those who want a democrat to be elected as the next president. Since the democrats are now in power, they will basically be walking on eggshells, doing their best so as to not offend those who night make their dreams of having the next president a democrat, being squashed.
They have walked the walk and talked the talk, so now they must prove themselves to be the "ones" who are going to make "drastic" changes for the betterment of the American public. But, as I stated, I highly doubt that there will be anything "drastically" changed or done, until such time as after the results of the 2008 presidential elections are concluded.
For the second, dissenting, anonymous poster: if you think that there is no violence done to freedom of choice and effective representation by our joke of a two-party system (really one party, as the nonruling party is, de facto, irrelevant-see the last six years) you are simply wrong. See the works of political scientists such as Shelley (2003), Ostrogorsky (1974), Lipset (various years, topic appears in many of his broad works on political culture) and others if you can't take my word for it. There's a reason why we don't have proportional representation, recall policies based on the concept of ageny rather than representation, or a Parliamentary legislature. It's the same reason why we have a 'strong executive' and the electoral college. It's to insulate the power elite from the 'whims' of the 'mob/masses/rabble.'
This is not a conspiracy theory. Seriously. Read up on the opinions of the political theorists so admired by the founding fathers, especially the ancient Greeks and Romans (whose influence is particularly strong in the thinking of Jefferson, Adams, etc.) among them.
Due to the political and social revolutions that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries in western Europe but did were not really paralleled in the U.S., these antiquated policies and structures have been largely abandoned across the pond due to the constant monitoring and vociferous criticism of strong labor parties and popular progressive/reform movements. We got our first taste of this kind of thing over here in the 1920s/30s with the rise of a viable workers' movement; the next way station were the progressive political and social movements of the 1960s.
Finally, modernity in political culture and institutions has come home to roost in the mainstream American consciousness. As I face this new reality, I am reminded of a phrase that I like to repeat to myself as a mantra in the face of so many developments in the culture, politics and ultimately history of our world in my lifetime:
Everything I ever really needed to know about the world I learned from Karl Marx.
If you don't want to be considered an "irrelevant" part of the government, then DO something about it. Get elected! And with this, do something that will make the voting public vote for you so that you aren't considered "irrelevant." One party rule...that's what the people voted for, and that's the way it is. Republicans control at one time, then the democrats, then the republicans again, then the democrats, and so on and so on and so on.
Quoting from authors who have written and expressed their thoughts 200 hundred or so years ago, (or even 50 years ago or so), is irrelevant, as the times they are a changin.' What a Thomas Jefferson might have said about the condition of the government, was said for that particular time period; thier mindset was not in any way emulating what the current political climate is. An example of this is when someone will quote what someone said 200 years ago, and try to make it sound as if that quote is just as relevant in todays world as it was when originally spoken. The founding fathers thoughts, opinions, etc., do not relate to the present political climate. In fact, it relates to that particular time period, not to today. Yes, one may try to infer that what was opinionated back then does relate to today, but for the most part, this just isn't so. Political climates change, so what was relevant back then, is not relevant today. To think this is true, one would also have to beleive that predicting the future is also a true entity, and this just isn't reality.
Post a Comment
<< Home