It is my belief that conventional political participation is pretty much useless, and that unconventional political participation is not used enough today.
Conventional participation encompasses things like voting, which we have already discussed and determined that many people feel that voting doesn't really change anything, writing to one's representatives, which doesn't do a whole lot because those representatives have more important deals to honor and people to appease than one or two ordinary citizens, and things like speeches, which may work up some publicity, but don't do anything with it.
Unconventional participation includes things like political violence, which I am not including in the "not used enough" category because with a country and military like ours not only would political violence probably not work, but it would scare many supporters away from the cause. But other things like civil disobedience are simply not used enough any more. Civil disobedience is a great way to work up public awareness and sympathy, and creates a problem that the authorities have to do something about, forcing action on the issue. I know that marches are getting a little stale and overused, but things like peacefully breaking a law to draw attention to that law's wrongness is just not seen often enough any more.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Important Issues
After perusing several of the proposed revisions to the constitution for the class, I realize that all of these issues are pretty important.
Okay, my gun control proposal is nowhere near as time-critical as Alex Oswald's spending amendment, or Ariane's health care amendment.
But I have very strong beliefs about issues like Kimberly's non-straight marriage amnedment and my gun-control amendment.
The point is that while I understand why candidates have to pick and choose which issues to talk about because there is only so much time to campaign, I wonder why they choose the issues they do. Most of the issues disscussed aren't the time-critical ones, but ones that no one seems to agree on, or ones that the candidates can say feel-good things about and move on.
Now, I haven't done much research on the current candidates other than what I hear during my every-day activities, but I really do wonder how they choose which issue to discuss in which forum.
Okay, my gun control proposal is nowhere near as time-critical as Alex Oswald's spending amendment, or Ariane's health care amendment.
But I have very strong beliefs about issues like Kimberly's non-straight marriage amnedment and my gun-control amendment.
The point is that while I understand why candidates have to pick and choose which issues to talk about because there is only so much time to campaign, I wonder why they choose the issues they do. Most of the issues disscussed aren't the time-critical ones, but ones that no one seems to agree on, or ones that the candidates can say feel-good things about and move on.
Now, I haven't done much research on the current candidates other than what I hear during my every-day activities, but I really do wonder how they choose which issue to discuss in which forum.
Public Opinion
I've always been aware that my personal beliefs and opinions vary from those of the majority of the population, but especially after the last reading, it is striking how far off I am from the rest of the country.
We, as a nation, scored very focused on the importance of quality-of-life versus simple survival. I certainly don't disregard the importance of quality of life, expanding oneself and making the most of one's life, but I think as both a fairly poor college student, a nursing student, and frankly a bit of a survivalist, I tend to rate the two about equal in importance. I don't have a lot of money, and right now my most pressing concern is making enough to keep food in my cupboards. As a soon-to-be nurse, I am constantly worried about the health, safety, and survival of myself and those around me. And as a survivalist my biggest concern is planning for the worst, concentrating only on what it would take to survive in any situation.
In addition to that belief set, we scored higher than any other developed nation on the importance of traditional/religious values as opposed to individuality and less traditional values. And as a bisexual, a liberal, and an atheist, I think I score about as far away from traditional values as possible.
We, as a nation, scored very focused on the importance of quality-of-life versus simple survival. I certainly don't disregard the importance of quality of life, expanding oneself and making the most of one's life, but I think as both a fairly poor college student, a nursing student, and frankly a bit of a survivalist, I tend to rate the two about equal in importance. I don't have a lot of money, and right now my most pressing concern is making enough to keep food in my cupboards. As a soon-to-be nurse, I am constantly worried about the health, safety, and survival of myself and those around me. And as a survivalist my biggest concern is planning for the worst, concentrating only on what it would take to survive in any situation.
In addition to that belief set, we scored higher than any other developed nation on the importance of traditional/religious values as opposed to individuality and less traditional values. And as a bisexual, a liberal, and an atheist, I think I score about as far away from traditional values as possible.
New constitutional revision
In light of my recent observations of the way that children and their parents behave in society, I am considering changing my amendment to the following:
Every physically and mentally able citizen will be required to spend 6 months in a waitstaff position at a restaurant, and 6 months as a service clerk. These requirements mush be completed by age 22.
I think that if everyone had to spend time in these jobs, not only would people be more patient with and understanding of the service sector, but parents might stop their children from screaming in the lobbies and dining rooms of restaurants, and they might keep their children in check while in stores, instead of letting them run wild and destroy merchandise and displays.
Thoughts?
Every physically and mentally able citizen will be required to spend 6 months in a waitstaff position at a restaurant, and 6 months as a service clerk. These requirements mush be completed by age 22.
I think that if everyone had to spend time in these jobs, not only would people be more patient with and understanding of the service sector, but parents might stop their children from screaming in the lobbies and dining rooms of restaurants, and they might keep their children in check while in stores, instead of letting them run wild and destroy merchandise and displays.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
