Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Yes, the next election cycle is going to get very interesting. I thought we would see the rise of a third party half way through Bush Jr. The Tea
Party was not what I envisioned at all, to say the least, and I think the fracturing that's occurred on the GOP side of the house thanks to the Palin
debacle and the Libertarian movements stealing voters away is only going to make things more interesting now that Democrats seem to see Obama as a
Obama could conceivable pull a second term out, but I don't think that will happen. He'd have to get cracking pretty hard, and make way too many
different types of people happy at this point. Last election, he built a base out of the usual suspects, plus a large number of disaffected folk and
several uneducated ones that fell for slogans alone. He welded them together at that point in time, but in the interim, they've fallen by the way
side, also disillusioned, and now lack the cohesion they had then to make it happen. I look for the next election to produce a surprise dark horse
candidate with the potential for a 3-way run and resultant split - possibly opening the door for a third party finally, or irreparably fracturing one
or both of the existing ones.
We can look for the power brokers to fight that tooth and nail. They've got a vested interest in maintaining the two party system, and have mechanisms
in place in several places already to prevent a third party from even getting on the ballot to upset that. Party splits of one or both may be the best
hope for actual change. It could be a really close race, with no one candidate taking a simple majority - say, split 3 ways with no single one taking
over 50%, and one winner taking all with 45-48% of the vote. Right now, the Republicans are poised to be the one that fractures, being set up as they
are in two armed camps - the Necons and the honest to god Republicans. The Neocon hostile takeover of that party is what prompted me to leave it, and
waves of other former Republicans as well. She;s set to blow now.
In that scenario, the dark horse will likely loose, but take enough to grab attention. Then, it's onward to the next contest, with a bit more clout. A
guy can dream, can't he?
Makes sense but then... why no outrage about building Chinese infrastructure and outsourcing?
The outrage against those things WAS there, but attention was intentionally diverted away from them, in favor of globalism.
I have no beef with China, but I'm uneasy with their involvement in our economy - but that's a globalist thing, I think. I'd rather they had told us
to "get a job" when we went to them hat in hand to bum. That would have prevented any problems with their interference in our internal economics, and
forced either a balanced budget or a revolution. Like I said before, nothing is too big to fail, and that includes countries. I'd rather start over
from scratch than proceed the way we're going. Sometimes, your "friends" see a different prize in the ten-ring than you do, or THINK they do.
Countries, like individuals, should live within their means. If those means are found to be insufficient, work to increase the means, don't borrow
from another that you will find yourself beholden to. You never know when that marker is gonna get called in, or in what way. "Friends" are better
held from a position of respect than from a position of debt, which leads to servitude. Those aren't "friends" they are potential masters.
I have a SERIOUS beef with outsourcing, and believe with all my heart that any corporation which engages in that practice should be dissolved or
expelled from the country, and barred from doing any business here, even through corporate proxies and cutouts - starting with physical exile of the
CEOs, and working downward until someone hollers "uncle!" and the company is here no more, or just "is" no more.
Outsourcing doesn't affect me as much as it does others, since I can't be "outsourced", but it's not right, no matter WHO is affected. Well, actually
I CAN be "outsourced", but I don't allow that to happen any more. Things need doing "here" worse than they do "there" nowadays. I guess it's better
said that I can't be outsourced against my will. I'm not an American export commodity any more.
This is where we differ, I suppose. I see the problems here as political...
How would you address things like child labor without any government oversight?
Since I've already said that the government has a proper function in law and order, specifically criminal issues where there is an injured party
because of the misbehavior of another, I'd criminalize it as "Human Trafficking" - which is exactly what I see it as being - rather than trying to
euphemistically soften it as "child labor". It's not "labor", it's abuse, no less criminal than sexual abuse. That would be enforced on the local
level, since a) they are closer to the problem, and b) higher government has no business toting guns or enforcing local law. I see the higher
government as being more coordinating and mediating in nature, with far fewer teeth than it has currently.
Local folks could of course choose their own punishments, but in cases involving harm to kids, I'd push pretty hard for death. That's just me.
I'm not against government altogether, I'm just against overgrown, over bearing, over reaching government. My problem isn't with it's existence, it's
with it's size and power. We've let it grow far too big and menacing, have let it insinuate it's tentacles into far too many nooks and crannies where
it has no business at all.. That's not the fault of the government, it's the fault of us watchdogs.
There is no such thing as "too big to fail", and the State had no business at all interfering in the natural death of mismanaged
Corporations. If I mismanage my personal affairs, there are consequences up to and including death to factor in, and corporate entities are no
different in that respect. Miyamoto Musashi said "from one thing, know 10,000 things". In other words, the macro is no different than the micro, it's
just a matter of scale. Corporations, like individuals, should not be insulated from the effects of bone-headed decisions, made by bone-headed
I agree but I think the solution is a matter of an oz. of prevention. We're seeing the pound of cure. If businesses were never allowed to get that
large in the first place no one would have needed to pump out billions of paper notes in a hope to prolong the inevitable just so their party doesn't
look stupid when it comes down around us.
That's where preventing monopolies comes to the fore. Furthermore, there needs to be a mechanism that prevents excessive buyouts of little fish by the
big fish. Using banking as an example, back when I was using banks, the bank I dealt with was a small local bank. Over the course of 5 or six years,
it got bought out by ever larger concerns, changing it's name and affiliation about every 6 months or so, culminating in Bank of America. Same bank,
same building, same people, but different, and ever larger, corporations until it grew into a monstrosity. Concurrently, each ever larger corporate
entity treated the little folk, like me, worse and worse, stealing more and more, with an ever-widening reach. BoA recently got into some trouble over
that, but a slap on the wrist just doesn't have the same ring as a full corporate deconstruction to me. Growth by those sorts of means should be
severely capped at a certain level, in my mind, same as monopolies should be prevented.
I don't do business with ANY banks any more, and haven't for years, because of BoA's abusive, power-grabbing ways. I limit dealing with banks at all
to cashing checks - taking money out rather than putting it in. I'll not be putting anything on deposit any more, giving them the ability to steal
from me, and use MY money for their own gain. Also, and I kid you not, I would burn a check, set it on fire right there in the bank parking lot and
watch it burn, before I would pay a dime of "cashing fees" to a bank that has already been paid by the depositor to handle their money. To be honest,
I've never actually done that, but I'm not above it. What I HAVE done is to take the check back to the originator, and say "This ain't working, your
bank wants to take MY money that you are supposed to be paying me because they are not MY bank. Unf*k this, right now. Either fix the bank problem, or
get me cash, and we'll just deal in cash or not at all from here on out."
That concept could be applied to nearly any company on the planet, not just banks - force 'em to do right or starve 'em - but it would require more
people to demand it than is currently the case. The next best thing is to prevent them from ever gaining the power where they think they can get away
with theft to begin with.
That involves preventing monopolies, and capping buyouts. Preventing trans-border corporations might also help. If they expand across a border, yank
out their ability to do business within your own borders. Make them an entirely foreign entity, subject to the import tariffs and such if anyone in
your own borders starts up an international trade with them. That would serve to inhibit growth AND prevent outsourcing. Further, I think if it were
me I'd make the import tariffs for such companies astronomical, to protect startup and operation of local businesses engaged in producing whatever
widget the traitors were producing. Call it a "punitive import tariff" to differentiate it from business done with with honest foreign companies.
I am not sure if I am ok with, say, Texas going full blown Capitalist and becoming what we see here... Wouldn't allowing that sort of system to pop up
just turn this nation back into what we are now? I mean, what we are talking about is like "neo-tribalism" from my point of view... It doesn't seem
that, historically speaking, tribes manage all too well when faced with an establishment like that.
I dunno. Texans are pretty tough, but how do you suppose they'd fare in a war of conquest against all other 47 of the continentals with mutual
protection pacts in place? look at Tecumseh. He gave the opposition a pretty good run by negotiating several alliances, building one larger
confederation without subverting the individual identities or autonomy of the constituent tribes. I believe that run would have been even more
successful, and stood a real chance, had not little brother Tenskwatawa ignored the plan and jumped the gun prematurely at Tippecanoe.
In the matter of guarding against expansion of a hypothetical full-blown Corporatocracy in Texas, it would rest then, as now, with the watchdogs. An
armed to the teeth, irascible, and educated populace who have no intention of being taken over, or allowing those in the "buffer zone" to be taken
over - because then WE would be next. The main difference between our situation and Tecumseh's would be that in our case, there would be a damn sight
more of "us" than "them".
Just had a brilliant notion... I think the solution is two fold. Firstly, the budget is decided collectively. Secondly, all tax dollars not spent that
fiscal year are returned proportionally. What you think?
It could work, assuming that budgetary matters were confined to a level manageable by a straight democratic process. That would, in turn, require a
limit on government size to a much smaller level, and so the idea has it's merits. Also, if the Federal Bureau of Picking People's Pockets ad Bugging
Their Living Rooms pissed off enough people this year, they could find operating funds entirely absent next year, and be forced to close up shop and
get a real job to feed their families. Where the idea heads south is in allowing people to vote themselves raises in matters of social programs.
Assuming that social programs are confined to the local community, both in funding and disbursement, it could work, especially with the notion that
keeping government smaller through less funding translates to a direct tangible benefit to the taxpayer - returned funds.
A guaranteed job there would be in the mail room of the Bureau of Giving Folks Back Their Money.
Not so different from the current process of jury selection, just with different qualification tests for the pool of potential
selectees. I can see how that would work, and trend against career politicians, replacing power tripping with civic duty. No one WANTS to be on a
jury, but we go when we're called.
Right. I imagine it would work out to be the same type of misery.
Some would look forward to it, others wouldn't. And it's those that wouldn't that we truly want.
No argument here. I see no holes in that theory.
I first noticed the "double speak" thing about the year 2000, when the meanings that held before of "red" and "blue" were swapped, blue
becoming the "left wing" Democrats and red becoming the "right wing" Republicans which had previously been the opposite. I'm just waiting on China to
become "Blue China" now instead of "Red China".
Funny you should mention this! I've been thinking I might have been losing it when I started seeing this sort of thing popping up. Even their logos
seem to have indistinguishable amounts of red and blue in them. It's a joke in plain sight.
Yup, it is, and it all started with the election maps in the 2000 election. After I noticed it, I tracked it backwards, and that was the first
occurrence of it. For some odd reason, the change took off like wildfire, and hardly anyone seemed to notice right away. I never found out whose
brilliant idea it was, but it seems to have been intended to confound and confuse.
A SMALL island, with a ring of guardians to sink any attempts at escape... but flat out execution would have a smaller economic
overhead, and prevent the necessity to watch for them over our shoulders for ever.
I still say kill them. But, this could be left up to the individual communities.
There's a lot to be said for not having to look over your shoulder for the rest of your natural life. Once they're planted, they're not an issue any
The stuff that was reported on the news, I agree with you. I've been rolling them when I have the time and from my point of view this stuff is
damaging, but it's only so in circles your average American doesn't know about. I've worked in the intelligence community (INB4: Military Intelligence
= oxymoron) and it isn't about what it looks like at face value. It's about what the sum of the parts mean. A little from cable A and a little from
cable B and we have an idea of a game plan if you know what you are looking at. (And if anyone is going to ask: No, I won't provide any examples from
the latest leaks.)
That isn't always true; however, a lot of stuff is just classified because it's easier to deal with that way. For instance, I stick a thumb drive in a
SIPR computer, now that drive is SECRET instead of me having to destroy it. Same thing happens all day long with all kinds of mundane stuff. That's
what makes it hard to sift through and find what is "good stuff" opposed to crap.
Believe me, I know how a picture can be built up of apparently unrelated factoids, until you decide to relate them. What I'm saying is that there is
far to much stuff classified at some level as a matter of course. The figure I heard was on the order of 4000 items daily by the US Government. That's
way too much stuff to keep track of, especially when most of it can't be justified as a "secret", and was only classified as a matter of course by a
rubber stamp process. Also, if classified diplomatic cables are a problem, they might want to consider limiting diplomacy to diplomatic matters, and
leave espionage to the professionals.
Yeah, yeah, I know, most of the Station Chiefs run their ops out of diplomatic missions, but that rug ought to be jerked out from under them, for the
good of diplomatic success. I don't know about you, but any diplomat that approaches my negotiating table with something to hide from me isn't going
to gain much of my confidence,and one would think that confidence ought to be the stock in trade of a diplomat. Therefore, I think diplomacy and
espionage ought to be taught in different schools., and operated out of different shops.
Hiding secrets among piles of "secrets" may be one strategy, but fewer secrets make a more manageable pile, and are easier to control and keep track
of. I dunno. It's just my sense that classified government stuff should have built-in expiration dates, and expire when military or intel ops using it
are finished, and the lives involved are off the field. That wouldn't extend to individuals, though. Every individual has the right to be secure in
their effects, including their secrets. I just can't grab the logic that would extend that to a government in perpetuity.
I mean, hell, FIFTY YEAR non-disclosures? Really now...
True enough. If you can't see where you've been, you can't map out where you're going. It's impossible to place one's self in a context
when no context exists. Perhaps the materialism is emplaced as a safety blanket in lieu of having a real context.
Exactly what I think.
Hence the reason behind the creation of Christianity and the Western philosophies that have created the world today. A foreign occupying force will
always face resistance. But foreign is contextual and with no context the people will accept anything. It's no different then the issues we see today
with Reservations. People don't want to accept the white world but don't want to live in squalor and all they hear is, "Why don't you just leave the
rez then?". My grandfather left because he needed to feed his family and now from the cultural fall out won't even tell the stories anymore. Just the
last time I saw him I asked him to tell me the Niitsitapi origin story to test the waters and he just left the room. The white side of my family
stands staunchly against any of it because it runs counter to ever "being successful" by western standards so they view it as all that context would
just be doing future generations a disservice. He's now a tired old man and I understand now...
That's a hard road.
Sounds like a foreign cultural context was forced on him, at the expense of robbing his descendants of their proper cultural context. Then it falls on
later generations to reconstruct or preserve it, which I suppose will be you. That doesn't mitigate the loss he has suffered personally, though. The
burden on your grandfather is not only having his own culture replaced, but also KNOWING. Knowing the loss of the future, and also knowing that they
would be in the dark, and NOT know themselves. For some, that thought could be the worst part. The dichotomy between what they consider a disservice
to the future and what he considers a disservice to the future likely creates a strain that he bears all by himself. And still, even now, he feels the
pressure from the white side of the family, and feels constrained to remain silent.
Yeah, that would leave you tired and darn near broken.
I only know a little of the cultural fallout you're talking about. I recall being called "chief" and "Geronimo", and I never lived on the rez. I
recall one time when I applied for unemployment, years ago. The red-headed lady looked at her computer screen, saw I was an indian, and flat out said
"you don't look like an indian". I just gave her what I hoped would pass for a winning smile, and said "Lady, what does an indian look like? Would it
help if I went outside, and came back in with some feathers in my hair?" I mean, hell, it was right there in her state supplied computer, from a state
supplied database. It wasn't an unsupported claim I made, to be questioned. I didn't bring it up at all, she did. I never even thought it would be in
the unemployment database. Never thought about it at all,and she wanted to question the veracity of it?
What did she think I was gonna steal? Did she think I was really working, and just trying to take a free ride on an indian ticket? I just can't fathom
some folks' minds, so I've stopped trying.
The white side of the family never bothered folks about it much. They sort of think it's a kick, but they have a different cultural context than most
outsiders any how, so I'm sure that helped. They aren't all that far removed from tribes and clans themselves. Appalachia still has a lot of cultural
difference from the outside world. Most of the culture there came from tribes and clans to begin with, and it still lives on. Probably why Johnson
announced his "War on Poverty" (which I never noticed him getting around to actually fighting in) in eastern Kentucky.
For the folks who think I grew up as a "priviledged son", I grew up in a shack. Gaps in the walls that snow and wind came through. We blocked it with
cardboard first, and insulation later as we could afford it. I can recall waking up in the winter because snow was falling through the roof and
hitting me in the face. I can recall seeing a glass of water I'd set on the nightstand the night before frozen in the morning. We had no indoor
plumbing at all. A shack out back, and a spring for water. I spent most of my time in the woods, because it really made not much difference to me if I
was indoors or out. I remember doing my homework by an oil lamp. Anyone who thinks no one lives like that in this day and age in America better think
I only mention this to show that I'm not talking out of my ass when I say the things I do, and I'm not as ignorant of the facts of the matter of
poverty as some folks would like to think. No, it wasn't the rez, but it wasn't far off from some of them. That shack is no more. It burned down to
the ground about 10 years ago or so, after we were all gone.
In the old days, execution or exile, with exile being the more common remedy. Nowadays, it's usually exile or ostracism, which often
enough leads to self-exile. A tree cut off from it's roots soon withers and dies, and few indeed are willing to risk that. Since it's the entire group
at risk, which is made up of all the individuals, there is rarely a lack of people willing to enforce the punishment.
Than it sounds like to me that the preventative measure is cultural and needn't worry. What are they going to do? Since all people can speak and all
people are taught that it is their civic duty to speak, when someone comes who will listen? Potentially a minority, but an armed and trained populace
is going to be the perfect check to that.
An armed population, educated in a jealousy for their liberty over material gain, and the ways folks will try to steal it, and you've got a winning
combination for all!
edit on 2010/12/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)