Saturday, March 19, 2011

Tales from "The 'Book": Democratic Dissonance, etc

Democratic Dissonance: A speech by Rep. Dennis Kucenich, in which he called for the return to Congress of it's constitutionally exclusive authority to commit war, was circulating on the 'Book this morning, which passed along to my wall with the introduction:
Three Words: "War Powers Act," 1973. An incredible act of legislative work-around (and constitutional reach-around). Read all about it. Kucenich ain't gonna get it repealed. This is just MOAR congressional kabuki...
Which together, occasioned this subsequent comment:
Somebody has to say officially that not all US is for this unbelievable bit of hypocrisy, murder and mayhem. Yes, lets keep waiting till people are killing each before we attempt another way shall we! But gee "we are the good guys!"! The US is the number one maker and dealer of military know how if you know what I mean. When you find this out, you start realizing "Oh my God what am I a part of?! Talk about the "t" word"! my fellow Americans have me absolutely "t"word" because I "know" my fellow Americans are absolutely nuts of all kinds. Its something I "know" about.
I replied:
Shannon, you're experiencing the contradiction of democracy, no matter how simulated it has in fact become: "voting" is a "speech act." It does impose ("entail") cognitive (and therefore, potentially dissonant) consequences.

Cuz if you really think you are a 'democratic' citizen in a representative republic, then the actions undertaken by your "representatives" are in fact done in your name, no matter what they are. Because, the logic goes, if what was happening in your name was NOT wht you authorized with YOUR "vote," you should have "voted" for some other alternative.

The dissonance comes in when you realize that WHAT you vote for doesn't really matter, only THAT you "vote" and by doing so endorse the pretense on which the status quo depends.

Senator Bernie Sanders apparently has put up a page on the 'Book, under the heading "When Is Enough Enough?" It has elicited (so far: mid-morning, Saturday) around 200 replies.

Echo answers:
Woody thinks this is an unserious question, in an era when the pre-eminent consumers can boast "He who dies with the most stuff wins." The entire ethos of this culture culminates in the belief that there is NEVER "enough." Capitalism THRIVES--in fact, is entirely dependent upon--that ethos, with its strange echoes of the Malthusian aporia.


Watch the vid. It's excellent. It is a paradigmatic illustration of the operation of the "Precautionary Principle," for which, sadly, it is increasingly becoming apparent, it is too late.
Read ALL about "The Precautionary Principle.""When an activity raises threats of harm to human or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.

No comments:

Post a Comment