Pyrus said:
Today is a day of sorrow, a day of remembrance, a day of resolve. A day to think on the events of two years ago and decide what they mean to you. But more than anything else, today is a day to reflect on what it means to be an American and a member of a democracy.
As a citizen of this country, you have a voice in how the country is run and who is running it. But how many of us are using that? In the hotly debated 2000 national election, a mere 67.5% of registered voters and 51.3% of eligible voters cast their votes for the presidential election. Consider that the citizens of America, one of the closest things to a true democracy in the world, barely turned out over halfway to exercise their rights; meanwhile, Iraq, for instance, is liberated from an oppressive dictatorship only to be plunged into anarchy and chaos under military rule. The citizens of countries like Iraq risk their lives for the right to make decisions; meanwhile, we've been sitting on it for 50-200 years (depending on your status), and barely even utilizing it.
So if you truly respect our soldiers and the history of our country, if you think that democracy is something worth fighting or dying for, if you want to have a voice in the way your life is run, then get out their and vote. Pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, anti-immigration, pro-school voucher, anti-war, pro-environment, whatever - the important thing is that you make your voice heard. We have a responsiblity to our country, to our neighbors, and to ourselves to participate in democracy - so don't fall silent when our country is in a dark place.
Thank you for your time.
-Reuben Poling
excuse me, i am drunk and pissed.
america isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. find the word democracy in the US constitution and i'll give you a million dollars.
"As a citizen of this country, you have a voice in how the country is run and who is running it."
no we don't, and thank god for that. we vote for a representative and his views, not our own, as it's impossible for every representative to have the 100% view of his constituents. furthermore, with regard to presidential elections, the electoral college decides, and that has nothing to do with the number of votes, but with the way each member of the electoral college votes (albeit they all currently vote with the majority of their state, BUT they don't have to).
if we had a true democracy things would be in the crapper long ago. people are fickle by nature, and stupid too (latest poll shows some 70% of americans believe iraq had something to do with 9/11. this view isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. anyway, whoever controls the information people receive, or the media, controls people's knowledge and opinions, and therefore, their "choices" in an election.)
"Consider that the citizens of America, one of the closest things to a true democracy in the world, barely turned out over halfway to exercise their rights"
i'm sure there's a state somewhere that's small enough that everyone participates in government, and historically speaking, greece was much closer to true democracy than we are--we're just like the netherlands during the 1600s, which was a republic that had elections of monarchs: nothing very special. anyway, like i said before, voting doesn't do much. think about it, we're allowed to vote because those in power let us vote. if voting changed anything, we wouldn't be able to vote. just like in iraq, where people voted. what did they change? nothing.
in our elections the two opposing sides (and there are always only two--how many votes did nader get? brown? buchanan? mcrenolds? they weren't even allowed in the debates. nader, when he raised enough money, wasn't allowed to show an ad. he tried to do it on NBC. they turned him down because they said he didn't have the potential to be elected, which was the same reason he wasn't allowed in the debates) are always funded by the same rich people and corporations. the one elected will always serve his benefactors, who are the ones giving all the money, and not the ones voting.
"The citizens of countries like Iraq risk their lives for the right to make decisions"
i thought it was american soldiers who risked their lives so iraqis could make decisions. i don't remember many iraqis risking their lives, except those who killed american soldiers.
"Pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, anti-immigration, pro-school voucher, anti-war, pro-environment, whatever - the important thing is that you make your voice heard"
all these things are bullshit and distract from the core issues. i'm surprised you didn't put gun rights/gun control in there. the keyword is "whatever," because that's exactly what the voters decide: absolutely nothing, or something really arbitrary. those in power put labels on things, and the masses think they have a choice. who isn't pro choice? ("i choose not to have an abortion, and don't want others to have one either" --isn't that a "choice"?) Democrat vs Republican -- what's the difference? there are conservative democrats, and liberal republicans. they all believe in "capitalism" and "democracy," which are really contradictory terms, as capitalism always aims to make people unequal and depends upon this fact (those with more money, and those with less) while democracy, in theory, treats everyone as equal. school vouchers-- wouldn't you say that a democracy entails an equal education for all? education is the basic starting point for all endeavors. vouchers mean a different education for some. that's not a democratic notion. pro environment--who's against this? some use it for profit, others want to preserve something or other, but all want it to last for them and their children. no one's really for destroying the environment, it doesn't make sense. everyone is for it. they want to live, don't they? anti-war--"who decides" whether or not there should be a question of whether we go to war or not? who decides whether or not we should have a standing army? (jefferson and madison said standing armies weren't good--the basis of the 2nd amendment). the person controlling what's being debated controls the debate, and not the ones who say they're for something or not. good example: the latest tax cut. the question wasn't about whether there SHOULD HAVE BEEN a tax cut or not, but HOW MUCH it should be.
"We have a responsibility to our country, to our neighbors, and to ourselves to participate in democracy - so don't fall silent when our country is in a dark place."
what's the dark place? do you know how polls are conducted? they represent the views of the entire nation, but they don't ask everyone. well, that's what voting is. just because everyone doesn't vote, the result is basically the same, given the choices. you might say people don't vote because they don't like the choices, fine--but those are the only choices available, and if they did vote it would be for what's available, or nothing at all, which is the same as voting.
how do you know people won't fuck things up? if the country is in a dark place, that presumably means the voters fucked things up--if you think voters have the power to control things, as i think you assume. if more people vote, they'll probably vote for the same things as the people mentioned above. nothing will change. so, participation is meaningless. our entire reality is fucked up, and we're swimming in it. try to see some other possibilities. why is democracy the best form of government? (you're assuming that it is). why will more participation change anything? (you're assuming it will).
the astronaut sees heroes and rapists as having the same faces, why do you divide things into opposites when they're not? why do you assume one thing is better than another?
like i said, i'm drunk. please excuse all spelling and grammatical errors.
