Troops are overseas dying. For what? For nothing, they are all dying in vain, and our government is doing nothing to end this disgraceful shame. Our President refuses to conceed anything, well if this is his cross to bear MAY HE BURN WITH IT, not the rest of our country, not the rest of our soldiers. The rest of the government is caught up in politcal faction and cowardice, and contineue to stall in a path of inaction. I say to them, cut the purse tomarrow or we as a people should cut their purse out from under them.
When government fails its the people's job to step forward. I understand this is a difficult burden to beear, but in search of strenght remember the tremendous burden that each of our servicement and their families carry in their duty to our country. We lost the war years ago and now it is time to accept the consequences: bring our troops and our focus home, and let's fix the system so that such a curse never befalls this country again.
2008 is too far away, the voting booth falls short in its power for the urgency needed in this conflict. If you would like to end the war in Iraq then do this one thing:
DO NOT PAY YOUR TAXES!!!!! Our government is corrupt with money so lets take the one thing that their hearts burn to have. They can't throw us all in jail, they will have one choice but to listen to US and act.
Brian Liebman
P.S. I understand this is a crazy idealist unrealistic idea. I was debating myself as to even post it. The point I am really getting at though, is not to create some sort of mass civil disobidience where no one pays their taxes and the country falls apart. First of all, that's not a good solution and second of all, its not going to happen.
My point is this: the voting booth has lost its power to hold our governemnt responsible for its actions. The system is so thoroughly
corrupt that there is probably not more than a dozen pure hearted polticians in office and of those, they are forced to compromise their interest in properly governing this country by the pressure to be re-elected and open themselves to leathal poltical assaults.
I don't want to say democracy is dead in this country, but its getting really close to that. I want to bring it back, before destory ourselves with conflicts and diasters such as Katrina and the War in Iraq.
No matter what you think, we can all agree that the government hasn't solved a single problem in this country since 9/11. In fact, we haven't even taken a step in the right direction to solve one of our many growing crises. This is not ALL Bush's fault, the entire government is corrupt, the polticians are fake, the media is only interested in ratings and profits, and the people hardly give a damn. Half of them don't even take the effort to make it to the polls to cast their Presidential vote (that's like letting someone else choose what college you go to, or what car your going to drive for the next 4 years).
That brings me back to my real point. The polls are not effective in checking the polticians (reasons are numerous) that is why I think we need to figure out another way we can pressure them to do the right thing. Finances came to my mind, since the government lives and breathes on taxes if we stopped paying taxes like any other living thing: if you cut off its breath, it will listen to your demands. My solution is not a good one, but I hope to trigger a new approach to checking our polticians, an approach that involves more than voting booths and an approach that will breed results.
May we never forget what this country was born from, and may we always look to progress that ideal.
Posts
1 comment:
Original Comments Posted:
Kevin D. Ascher (New Hampshire) wrote
at 10:38am on July 17th, 2007
It's commendable that you're thinking about the issues affecting this country--unlike many Americans, you're actually paying attention. I personally am at a loss as to the best way to get this war to end. I'm not so sure if my personal idea would be 100% effective, but it would be awesome if our representatives in Congress were flooded with letters (not generic e-mails) from ordinary Americans saying that we've had enough of this waste and that it's high time they started listening to us. This idea probably wouldn't have any immediate effects, but it would show politicians that Americans were finally starting to care. Right now I feel that politicians can get away with many of the things they do because they don't think people will care enough to do anything about it. I don't think my idea would be a magic bullet, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction from the current public inaction.
Message - Delete
Kevin D. Ascher (New Hampshire) wrote
at 10:41am on July 17th, 2007
I have written a few e-mails to the representative of my college's district in Congress but I think actual letters would be more effective than e-mails, since it takes more time and thought to write a letter than it does to write an e-mail. Peace!
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 12:16pm on July 17th, 2007
Yeah the thing about emails and letters is that it really has not power over them. The only thing you can essentially have over them in that case is your vote and the possibily of convincing other people not to vote for them. However, since you are a concious citizen and obviously opposing this politicans most likely you wouldn't have voted for them anyway, so what do they really have to gain by listening to you.
I think George Bush is a prime example of how little effect public opinion has on politicans. His approval rating is at an all-time low and the entire country is begging to get out of Iraq or at least have something even remotely cloes to "progress" done in Iraq yet neither has happened and he has continued to "stay the course."
What you have to realize is that 90% of polticians don't give a damn about you, don't give a damn about the country and don't give a damn about government. They are a bunch of spineless slime who have failed miserably at their jobs.
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 12:18pm on July 17th, 2007
Who care only about their own self interest and poltical careers. The irony in it all is that they are so scared of being unpopular yet at the same time they never cater to what the people really want, a genuine honest leader.
Delete
Kevin D. Ascher (New Hampshire) wrote
at 1:25pm on July 17th, 2007
I agree with your point, but the politician I'm talking about is someone I actually did vote for--she won on the 2006 Democratic wave, beating a pro-war Republican incumbent and has a husband who is a Vietnam veteran, so she has some first-hand experience w/ a vet. I talked to her once and she seems like a nice, decent person who wants the troops to come home, but even nice people need to be pushed further than what they're used to now and then. Unfortunately the two Senators representing my state are two pro-war Repubs, so obviously I won't even try there! I actually sent one of them an e-mail petition supporting impeachment of Bush, but I think you can guess what the result was. It's great that you write these notes, Brian. It gets people thinking about what needs to be done--this is what our country needs to do more of.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 6:26pm on July 17th, 2007
Thanks Kevin, although I doubt the amount of people that read them is astounding.
You were right on with your point that "even nice people need to be pushed further than what they're used to now and then."
We didn't elect these people into office so that they would fold against any opposition and any threat to their political careers.
I think this brings another problem to the table, there is no reward for a poltician who is bold and couragous, only those who are greedy, cowardly are rewarded.
Another issue which is truly at the heart of the problem and which will need to be fixed in order for things to change.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 11:41am on July 23rd, 2007
I agree with the spirit of your note, but I don't think your approach to it is entirely correct; and taking the wrong approach may be more regressive than anything.
First of all, it is obvious that the American system is a failed one, and that democracy is impossible and cannot work. Our leaders are, as you say, detached from the public. But it is not because they aren't "purehearted, bold, and courageous." To be frank, it's simply foolish to believe that any leader, in any government, in any nation, in the history of humanity, has been a genuinely "good" person. It is equally foolish to believe that being innately "good" is necessary for a leader to do their job. I'd go as far as to say it's foolish to believe that any human on the planet is, at their core, "good." Evolutionarily, humans are greedy, corrupt, and forked-tongued. I'm afraid that if we pool all our hopes into some "good-natured" person, we are all quite doomed, because it will never happen.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 11:52am on July 23rd, 2007
That being said, the question lingers, "How are our leaders detached?" They are detached not by being "corrupt," but because their class interests directly contradict those of the masses. Everything can be explained under the scope of dialectical struggle, Brian. The current social class in power is the bourgeoisie, which sees war as little more than a business strategy. It guarantees new markets - markets for commodities, markets for capital, and markets for labor - for the trifle price of a few thousand lives lost. It makes its profit by rendering specialization obsolete (essentially making it more difficult for the lay to buy back what they produce) and human labor obsolete through the advancement of the certain means of production. This decreases demand while simultaneously increasing supply, but only the bourgeoisie itself benefits.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 11:57am on July 23rd, 2007
In a word, our state is detached because its class interests do not collude with, but rather contradict, the interests of the prevalent social class. A new government must be installed to destroy this mechanism of profit-accumulation for a very marginal and select portion of society and guarantee that the state-citizenry relationship is one characterized by mutual interest (as opposed to one-sided altruism, which is what you're getting at). Civil disobedience is the key, but how will this go about?
This is my second problem with your note. It doesn't have an appreciation for the deterministic nature of history. Civil disobedience and regime change does not occur without a substantial stimulus upon the masses. A few thousand lives lost in a firefight and a drizzle in Louisiana is not enough. Not if it took decades of war and famine to topple the French monarchy, or the Russian monarchy.
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:00pm on July 23rd, 2007
Granted, if we continue along our present historical vector, we will arrive at some point where civil backlash against the state is inevitable. But we are not there yet. If we trick ourselves into believing that we are at this major historical catalyst, we will undermine its significance when it actually comes.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 11:43am on July 24th, 2007
I'm sorry Chase but that's a load of crap. Man is good, it is the evil world which corrupts him (you seem to think he is corrupted from the get go). Some of us are not corrupted in the process and those rare few should be our leaders (assuming the possess the other qualities needed for leadership).
As for the rest of your arguement, I disagree, we are at the point of a major historical turning point whether you or the public likes it or not. Who we choose to lead us for the four years after George Bush leaves very well may determine the future direction of this country.
Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 11:48am on July 24th, 2007
Oh also that whole man evolving to be greed is a load a cow dung, I've heard it before, but its simply a lie. If you want to deny mankind all of its goodness and noble qualities by all means do it, but you will be denying the essence of the human struggle, and if your trying to quote history to support your arguement well its pretty tough to quote history on anything if your missing the main point of it.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:03pm on July 24th, 2007
"Man is good, it is the evil world which corrupts him?" If that were true, Brian, then can you tell me from whence the evil in that world comes?
Natural selection is not theory, it's fact. If you want to deny it, you're spitting in the face of what is essentially the consensus entire scientific community. If you do believe in natural selection, it's not very difficult to understand why mankind is naturally self-centred. WE ARE ANIMALS! Say you had two pre-human civilizations. One was guided by altruism, peace, and genuine caring. The other was guided by self-interest and manipulation. In the competition for natural resources, who do you think would win? And so who do you think you and I are descended from?
If you want to say mankind is innately good, you're doing it not based on any sort of rational thought, but because of some irrational, sentimental calling. You're invoking abstract, subjective language (i.e. denying "the essence of the human struggle") in order to...
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:08pm on July 24th, 2007
...put a muffle on the voice of reason, which is often less catchy and more pessimistic. You want to feel like humans are good, even though you can't provide one single rational argument to substantiate your claim. In truth, what you're doing makes no more logical sense than believing in God. And when you begin to believe in fairy-tales just because they make you feel better or give you a false sense of purpose in a purposeless world, you're just an obstacle in the march of progress. And the march of history.
The fact is clear - the lay have not developed solidarity against their common enemy, or a consciousness of their common path. They are unaware that the road on which they trod will lead them to a major historical turning point, which will either conclude with revolution or tragedy. It is up to the intelligentsia to enlighten the masses with a sense of this consciousness. This is necessary to anticipate the exacerbation of class conflct...
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:12pm on July 24th, 2007
...and do something about the situation before it gets out of hand.
But if other organizations step in and claim to know the right solution, they will only hurt us more. Any organization that believes that the current means of appropriating state power in this country is dangerous, because they are unaware of the dialectical nature of the current state. Any organization that believes that free trade, materialism, and the market ought to be sacrificed in the name of "ethics, values, morals, and culture" is also dangerous, because they do not grasp that these things are little more than ideas created to accomodate the material conditions of society, and are expected to die and be reborn to accomodate new material conditions. Any organization that claims that humans are essentially good, and that nothing more is necessary than genuine goodwill in government, is perhaps the most dangerous of all. They will stand idly by and allow corruption and incompetence to persist...
Message - Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 12:17pm on July 24th, 2007
...merely because they refuse to believe that any human system can be successful without the intervention of saints. It will be a failed system in the future, and ultimately the masses will be forced into a retrograde step back to the failed system of today.
The best system is the one that colludes self-interest and communal-interest. This eighth-grade poppycock about a kind, generous leader will not work. I cannot think of a single selfless leader in history - a leader who, instead of merely appearing selfless to earn the support of his constituents, or benefit his social class in general, improves society simply because it gave him personal satisfaction.
In fact, many times in history, when a government legitimizes itself because it is "more kind," disaster follows. Mao promised to be "more kind" than that corrupt, evil Chiang Kai-Shek who was destroying the Chinese culture and way-of-life with petty materialism, didn't he?
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 10:28pm on July 25th, 2007
Chase its a damn shame that our smartest deepest thinkers like you have to deny their own soul.
You all speak so rationally, with such "reason", but where's your reason?
I find it laughable that you consider God a fairy-tale. You know what atheism is, its a joke. Your denying man his soul, and gaining nothing. All because your scientific logical language can't properly convey what the soul is, but of course in your arrogance rather than accept the shortcoming of this particular school of thought, you decide that since it can't be explained it doesn't exist.
Man is good, but not a man that isn't even humble enough to believe in good.
Delete
Chase HM (Hackley School) wrote
at 10:31pm on July 25th, 2007
This isn't a topic worth debating, because I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. In short, I can say that nothing exists until it can be suggested rationally. Therefore, if good government is conditional upon this non-existant entity, I am afraid we are all quite doomed.
"Man is good, but not a man that isn't even humble enough to believe in good."
I really do like that last line, even though I disagree with it considerably.
Message - Delete
Brian Liebman wrote
at 12:05pm on July 26th, 2007
I agree, nothing will be accomplished here but my next note is going to be on Atheism so maybe there we can have at the least an angry heated debate which other people will be like "wtf are these losers talking about."
Perhaps also I can just crack open the slightest bit of spiritual awakening in your psyche so that later in life when your at a position of power it will come back to you and you can use it.
Read Uncle Tom's Cabin or Malcom X and you will realize what spirituality is all about, those are both much better testitments against Atheism than any note I can write.
Post a Comment