Thanks, Lola --
Scrat, you always attempt to squirm out of any admission that you might have been wrong, or that someone else might have been right, so i'm sure that this is futile, however . . .
The Oligarch takes power as of by right, and without any concern for or reference to the consent of the governed. Here's a little text, with which i would hope that you don't quibble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . " Allow me to emphasize--deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not only does Oligarchy have no reference to the consent of the governed, not only is the Oligarch a self-imposed, and not an elected ruler, Oligarchy also maintains itself on an hereditary basis. So, you see, i would indeed never wish to live your world, were it predicated upon a belief that it is possible to reconcile Oligarchy and Democracy. In fact, any such term as an Oligarchic Democracy is by definition an oxymoron.
If that is your notion of a representative democracy, i am more convinced than ever that i do not wish to live in your world . . .
Quote:Coming next week is "The Bob Graham Charisma Tour 2004," a 10-track CD featuring Graham's long-standing campaign song, "We've Got a Friend in Bob Graham," plus a new Latin-beat, Spanish version called "Arriba Bob" and an ode dedicated to his trademark workdays, "I've Done Every Job, Man."
Graham, who also is known for his voluminous logs of his daily activities, does not perform on the CD. But during a conference call with reporters Wednesday, Graham quipped, "I sing not only campaign songs, but also songs which I learned on one of my workdays as an actor." He offered to sing a few bars of "Plant a Radish" from "The Fantasticks."...
Other tracks on the CD include "Bob Graham, The ONLY Candidate," to the music of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer;" "My Beautiful Adele," a ballad dedicated to Graham's wife; "G.W. Bushonomics, Supply Side, Economic Blues;" and "My Black and White Friend," a ditty about the replacement cow valve used in Graham's recent double-bypass heart surgery.
Salon.com
"a ditty about the replacement cow valve used in Graham's recent double-bypass heart surgery."
I'm going to buy flowers, have dinner catered, and turn the lights down low for when the wife gets home...
That's the damnedest question, Scrat! You'd be happy in, say, China or the old USSR where you got to vote for one choice! Ah, the authoritarian way is so simple, so clear, so clean, so... profitable for those at the top.
Scrat, as long as the "few" are truly elected officials and not figure heads placed in office by another "few"...........really, it's a very important distinction.
There was one helluva report on NPR this afternoon about Dems in Chicago deciding to vote for Bush and why. Really a must-listen report (available on audio, All Things Considered).
Here's some interesting stuff about Bill Moyers and the Dems' meeting from The Nation online:
Quote:Democratic presidential candidates were handed a dream audience of 1,000 "ready-for-action" labor, civil rights, peace and economic justice campaigners at the Take Back America conference organized in Washington last week by the Campaign for America's Future. And the 2004 contenders grabbed for it, delivering some of the better speeches of a campaign that remains rhetorically -- and directionally -- challenged. But it was a non-candidate who won the hearts and minds of the crowd with a "Cross of Gold" speech for the 21st century... ...Journalist and former presidential aide Bill Moyers delivered a call to arms against "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class." ... Moyers charged that "rightwing wrecking crews" assembled by the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies were out to bankrupt government. Then, he said, they would privatize public services in order to enrich the corporate interests that fund campaigns and provide golden parachutes to pliable politicians. If unchecked, Moyers warned, the result of these machinations will be the dismantling of "every last brick of the social contract." .... ...Paraphrasing the words of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th president rallied the nation to battle against slaMoyers said "the social dislocations and the meanness of the 19th century " were being renewed by a new generation of politicians who, like their predecessors, seek to strangle the spirit of the American revolution "in the hard grip of the ruling class." ...Moyers declared,
"Our nation can no more survive as half democracy and half oligarchy than it could survive half slave and half free." ....To break that grip, Moyers said, progressives of today must learn from the revolutionaries and reformers of old. Recalling the progressive movement that rose up in the first years of the 20th century to "restore the balance between wealth and commonwealth," and the successes of the New Dealers who turned progressive ideals into national policy, Moyers told the crowd to "get back in the fight." "Hear me!" he cried. "Allow yourself the conceit to believe that the flame of democracy will never go out as long as there is one candle in your hand."
http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=739
Quote:...half democracy and half oligarchy...
Tartarin - Isn't that a pretty fair definition of a representative democracy?
Here's the audio report on the political shift in Chicago:
Bush Pushes Medicare Drug Benefits Plan
In a speech before health workers in Chicago, President Bush urges Congress to take action before July 4 on his proposals to add prescription drug benefits to the federal Medicare program. Some see the speech's venue as part of Bush's plan to capitalize on his popularity in an otherwise Democratic stronghold. NPR's Michele Norris reports.
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=current
Lola wrote:Setanta,
You are so brave.
Uh . . . not really . . . it's all just dancing electrons here, Boss . . .
fishin
I don't see you for weeks and you come up with that one!
Dear, dear Scrat.........what will we ever do with you? Let's look at the reality of the thing. This white house administration is an oligarchy and we're all in serious danger because of it. Rove is a dangerous man. We must rid ourselves of him and his kind.
PDiddie wrote: "a ditty about the replacement cow valve used in Graham's recent double-bypass heart surgery."
I'm going to buy flowers, have dinner catered, and turn the lights down low for when the wife gets home...
Bob's been busy makin' moosic???
I did not state nor suggest, nor is proper to infer from what i wrote that the first definition is invalid. That definition definitely does not say, "rule of the few, without regard to how they got to power or how they wield it," which is an example of what i meant by drawing attention to the rhetorical contortions to which you habitually resort to suggest that you weren't wrong. I've not ignored the definition of oligarchy as rule by the few, and, in fact, Lola supplied the definition before my post.
No, Scrat, i don't respect your point of view, because you will make every attempt to pervert a text (as in your very convenient perversion of definition 1, above, which you expand with your own text to suit the utterly silly remarks with which you will follow), and to twist what others have written (nothing in what i wrote denied the validity of a definition of oligarchy as the rule of the few), just in order to always suggest that you have been right. And i certainly do consider that desire on your part manic.
You display your habitual disregard, or perhaps ignorance, of history in this post--never was there an oligarchy which was chosen, never was an oligarchy subject to the correction of the people, never was an oligarchy ever unseated other than by revolutionary means (whether or not violent). If you think you can go dredge up one or more historical examples thereof, you help yourself. I've not the least doubt that you will pass them through the mangle of your bizarre forensic style in the attempt to make your point.
Yes I am, Tarty. Those three you name certainly are the online "buzz" candidates.
The old technology candidates--Gephardt, Lieberman, Graham--have much farther to go to attract non-traditional voters, both in the primaries and in the general election.
And they simply don't generate any excitement.
Bob's musical compilation notwithstanding...
Setanta wrote:The Oligarch takes power as of by right, and without any concern for or reference to the consent of the governed.
Setanta - I looked up the word:
Quote:Main Entry: ol·i·gar·chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control
I was using it as per definition #1. You are using it as per #2, and suggesting that #1 is not a valid definition. Perhaps Merriam-Webster and I are wrong about this use, but that is the way I used the term; rule of the few, without regard to how they got power or how they wield it. (In our system they are democratically elected; part oligarchy, part democracy.)
Now, clearly your point of view is valid, but I think mine is as well. It's a matter of which definition you use. I think you infer something inherently negative in the term where I simply took it to mean that you are being ruled by a small group. Period. If you think my interpretation is wrong, then think me wrong. I understand your point of view and simply disagree with it on this. I hope you can respect that and differentiate it from some imagined manic desire to never admit I am wrong.
Setanta,
You are so brave.
as ever with crony capitalism..........................................................
follow the money. at the end of that trail one will find the culprits and along the way the evidence to hang them with.
the busheviks are extraordinarily proficient at hiding their manipulation of the political process. they are less capable of hiding their greed.
what took down al calpone was not murder, but taxes.
evidence of collusion of the busheviks and the companies that are allegedly "restoring" iraq will resonate with the population more than faked data on wmd.
the faked data is merely a means to an end. people will appreciate more that they were manipulated if they know that the entire effort was based upon economic gain for friends of the GOP leadership.
