[extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth

[Brett Paatsch]

Adrian Tymes wrote:

>> > What of those citizens who attempted to do so, and were thwarted
>> > by the other citizens?  Would you tar them with the same brush,
>> > for failing to lay down their lives (which it might have taken,
>> > in the face of that much opposition) for what you claim is just?
>> 
>> What about them?  They are minority instances of a class. They
>> are not the class.
> 
> They are, in fact, just under half of the class in this case.
> And if you tar them for something they did not do, they will
> perceive you as being unwilling to engage in honest debate or
> reconciliation. 

I'm not tarring anyone, this is just a mailing list. No tar.  

>  Which leaves them...what options?  Those who are
> indeed responsible, may perhaps repent their behavior.  

You think Bush will repent? Cheney? The neo-cons? These
folk are almost irrelevant now.  It would do the world good
to see them impeached and prosecuted for high crimes and
misdemeanors and imprisoned after due process but that isn't
going to happen unless the citizens of the US care enough to
make it happen. 

The class of people that are doing the damage are the voters,
and the damage they are doing is in not being sufficiently 
vigilant when they are not personally affected.  

Individually citizens can hardly repent, if individually they did
not engage with the issues of the international rule of law in
the first place. 

The average voter justs asks dumb questions like "why do 
"they" (foreigners, terrorists) hate us so much?"

We'll it isn't personal, its collective. They "hate" you so much
because of what you Americans permit your government to
do. They hate Americans because of American foreign policy
and the manifest injustice of American foreign policy. 

And, obviously, I don't hate you by the way, I don't hate any
posters to this list, (in fact I don't hate anyone at all). I'm putting
things in dumb-speak. 

> Those you
> attack for something they did not do, are left with no options
> save ignoring your attack (which, if you can actually do
> something to this large a class, might not be an option) or
> retaliating in as destructive a manner as possible.

Its not an attack. 9/11 was an attack. The invasion of Iraq was
an attack. *This* is attempted communication. 


> The class of people who are responsible for the actions of the
> government of America is not now, and never has been, the entire
> population of said country.  The same holds for Australia and any
> other country of at least several thousand people (if the
> threshold is not in fact smaller).  Justice is meted out to
> people, not nations, and there is always a limit to liability
> for the actions of other people.
> 
> If you would punish someone for not impeaching Bush, punish the
> members of Congress, not the people who voted for them.

I'm not punishing.  

The members of Congress are the representatives of the people who
put them there. The "terrorists" know that, that is why the terrorists
attack the people who put them there. They are engaged in something
logical. They are trying to change American foreign policy. I don't
agree with their means but I think American has joined them in using
those means.

To the extent that terrorists or anyone is trying to get the American
people to wake up to the consequences of breaking international
law then I agree with their aims.  

It could be that the terrorists are the only force that can communicate
with the American public on a level that the American public can 
understand, because the American public does not respect the rule
of law enough to uphold it. 

> (Punishment for "voting the wrong way" has long been recognized
> to have profoundly negative effects on who gets elected, even in
> this case.  That's why we have secret ballots.) 

There is no right way to vote in a system that is inherently wrong. 

Look at it from an non-US citizens point of view. They don't get
to vote in US elections at all but they do wear the consequences.


> In fact, that
> may still be possible: organize movements opposing all
> Congressional incumbents, running in the 2006 elections, who
> refuse to sign a pledge to impeach Bush.  

Well, what do you think, would *you* do that?  You are making
me justify what I am saying but what are you prepared to do if
you agree with me? And if you personally don't agree with me
than where is it that you don't agree? 

> (Of course, circulate
> that pledge to them first, and make sure it's simple and to the
> point rather than laden down with hyperbole that might make even
> pro-impeachers blink. The voters you hope to persuade will see
> through that hyperbole.  If it's a simple pledge to impeach Bush,
> you might get more support from them than you think you'd get.)
> You might even be able to get organizations such as MoveOn to
> help out with that.

You are offering me procedural advice. I don't need procedural
advice. 

I just want to know what you personally think. 

Brett Paatsch.