I am about to visit in the politics threads. As a liberal, I've got come with extra protection.
You'll be humored to know that as a Canadian, US politics seems a rather non-polarized affair, claims of the major players to the contrary.
Once upon a time, I got fooled into voting for Ronald Reagan.No need to detail the disillusion that followed. His administration signalled the end of freedom for the working public. Bush the first rode his coattails and then bombed out. Clinton usurped the Republican agenda and undercut all Democrats who did not vote as Republicans vote. The Democrats foundered as a party, and hysterically voted as the hysterical public wanted: In favor of anything Bush the second wanted: unlimited military spending; unlimited breaks to big business; not a farthing for infrastructure or social works.
Today, my one motivation for voting against any and all Republicans is not because I feel anything for the Democrats, but, to hopefully end the war and slow down the madman's (Bush's) spending. Aside from that, I have to agree with Ralphie-Boy Nader that there no longer is much that separates the Jackasses from the Elephants. They all are in a lock step with the military industrial complex and they want power and money; nobody is in it to serve the electorate. If it were not for the war, I would be voting Green this and every election.
It's a sad way to vote when the reasoning is:
You only have two influential parties, both of which are rather similar in their net effect over time, and yet one might be somewhat worse. Not that I am critiquing your good intentions, only making commentary on the conditions at hand as I see them.
BTW I might quit my job with the big aerospace firm and take one with one of the major shipyards. I am not being treated well and have started a harassment claim, but it would be so much easier to simply switch, given there are many good opportunities for a qualified journeyman union electrician in lower mainland. I get many calls from the union hall every week.
A docile, consumerist public lacks the foresight and fortitude to install a party receptive to their own needs. See Montag run like a rat. He is not that much in the future, at this rate.
Not to suggest that I am some sort of Super US Political Pundit (SUSPP).
But it's my understanding that the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) has major interests and institutions in virtually every state of the union.
This diversification has the express effect (intentionally or otherwise) of ensuring that no political representative wanting to remain popular, would likely go against the IMC's interests.
Why?
It would be political suicide due to major loss of state income!
Also I gather the issue of soft-money and special interest groups and government lobbyists (tobacco, oil, agribusiness etc) holds substantial sway in Washington.
These influences far outweigh the popular vote.......quite often!
And that's assuming the popular vote is based on people "voting their conscience", and not simply voting on the basis of a candidate popularity contest.
In a sense, I wish you did not concur!
Then you (potentially) would be able to challenge my viewpoints to the extent that you could show freedom from tyranny is alive and well.
I can say however, that consumerism and materialism appear to soften the blow of what I call "soft-tyranny".
I would also suggest that we as individuals (if not collectively) have more freedoms than most of history's individuals have had.
Chumly wrote:In a sense, I wish you did not concur!
Then you (potentially) would be able to challenge my viewpoints to the extent that you could show freedom from tyranny is alive and well.
I can say however, that consumerism and materialism appear to soften the blow of what I call "soft-tyranny".
I would also suggest that we as individuals (if not collectively) have more freedoms than most of history's individuals have had.
That's what keeps us quiet. We are comparatively well off. Except for the entertainment level, our freedoms shrink, and we are loathe to rock the boat.
edgarblythe wrote:I am about to visit in the politics threads. As a liberal, I've got come with extra protection.
Did you remember your BS protective gear? I've shown you an example below that should be a must!
A question comes to mind then.
If you accept that the US is the world's policeman, and if you accept that the US provides an overall stabilizing global influence, would it be fair to say that if the US did not hold this dominant position, (facilitated by the IMC, "soft-tyranny" and materialism) then our modern geo-political environ might be more unstable?
If you accept the above, then an argument can be made that the IMC, "soft-tyranny" and materialism is the price we pay for our present level of geo-political stability.
Now, I am not saying I accept this argument, nor am I saying there are not better ways to do things. But this argument is a common one and has at least some rationale to support it.......if history is any indicator.
OTOH, it might be just as fair to say that what geo-political stability we presently enjoy is more likely despite not because of the IMC, "soft-tyranny" and materialism.
I would prefer that we join with other nations, to form a world policeman, reminiscent of the UN, but hammered out of good justice and common sense. To seek statesmanship before firing off weapons, but not fear using any. In that way, I could accept our "role." Right now, it's just too arbitrary. A loose cannon like Bush runs counter to the notion.
The "soft tyranny" of which you write becomes more intrusive each year. I don't like the feeling of living like a caged chicken. I don't accept that we can't build infrastructure and see to the social need of the people. I am not allowed to make my own health decisions now. Some very effective products I had been using were not just given a bad reference by the government; they were outlawed. The owner of one of the companies was put in jail. The system imposed on the working classes steadily drives down wages and benefits. The list is endless.
You might feel more comfortable being a unionized worker in Canada with a socialized medical system........then again maybe not!
I have this thread with that in mind
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=114127
I don't know how socialized I want our medical system. I do know I hate the way the FDA and big drug companies have usurped medical care here. I hate that so many among the poor have no coverage. I think it unconscionable that the insured often get turned down for treatment when the illness becomes costly. But it requires a broader based knowledge and wisdom than I possess, to set up a workable system.
I will be glad to set up the health care system, Edgar.
I am capable.
Could you PM me the specifics, gus? I am getting old and haven't time to wonder.
Incidentally, I have located a copy of the book you recommended to me. It should be here one day soon.
edgarblythe wrote:But it requires a broader based knowledge and wisdom than I possess, to set up a workable system.
Don't sell yourself short.
Chumly wrote:edgarblythe wrote:But it requires a broader based knowledge and wisdom than I possess, to set up a workable system.
Don't sell yourself short.
It's like art; I'll know it when I see it.
I've never been very good as guessing people's names.....
Reyn wrote:edgarblythe wrote:I am about to visit in the politics threads. As a liberal, I've got come with extra protection.
Did you remember your BS protective gear? I've shown you an example below that should be a must!
It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.
