Slashdot Mirror
In Nothing We Trust
Hugh Pickens writes "Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton write in the National Journal that seven in 10 Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, only 23 percent have confidence in banks, and just 19 percent have confidence in big business. Less than half the population expresses "a great deal" of confidence in the public-school system or organized religion. 'We have lost our gods,' says Laura Hansen. 'We've lost it—that basic sense of trust and confidence—in everything.' Humans are coded to create communities, and communities beget institutions. What if, in the future, they don't? People could disconnect, refocus inward, and turn away from their social contract. Already, many are losing trust. If society can't promise benefits for joining it, its members may no longer feel bound to follow its rules. But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems. At a moment of gaping income inequality, when the country was turbulently transitioning from a farm economy to a factory one, President Theodore Roosevelt reminded Americans, 'To us, as a people, it has been granted to lay the foundations of our national life.' At the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt chastised the business and political leaders who had led the country into ruin. 'These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men,' said FDR. 'Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.'"
... after all, if I can't trust Slashdot, who can I trust?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Discuss.
In myself, in my family (to at least act as I know they will), and in my hometown.
I trust that the proletariat means well, perhaps not in "Andy Griffith" style, but that on the whole basic communities work given proper resources.
If not for the fact that secession has been effectively outlawed with mandatory military response, I'd consider seeing if New England could strike out on its own and see what came of it.
Hey, does anybody remember when there used to be tech stories on slashdot?
Yellow journalism (on both sides) is almost completely based around the idea of making us dislike and not trust our fellow humans. The more we can walk away from these inflammatory media sources, the better.
Probably the American institutions have gotten to big for their own good. Perhaps we will see some states secede and finally US will become a collection of countries in a loose union similar to the EU
Seventy percent of the populace may claim dissatisfaction but sixty-nine percent will happily vote for either Obama or Romney. Either they aren't really dissatisfied or they are just completely clueless.
They'll post every detail about their life on Facebook.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
People do not trust Their Party, but they still distrust The Other Party, so they will keep voting party-line.
So nothing will change.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
People complain about spouses and jobs which they in fact want to keep.
Might the same thing be happening here? People still keep their money in banks, shop at big businesses, and don't use any of the many tools for influencing the government. They still call 911 when there's an emergency.
The most remarkable thing about this abject collapse is that not a single facsimile of a leader who understands what is happening and has a glimmer of an idea what to do about it is in evidence. It's just not natural.
You can believe if you want that all 300 million citizens without exception are either STUPID or have no leadership skills whatsoever. But methinks Occam's Razor suggests that there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
The first past the post democratice system essentially forces a 2 party system so you can "win" the election. If there are N parties then they split the vote N ways, any 2 parties in a N party system can combine and gain position. By reduction you get a 2 party system if it is irreducable or 1 a party system if reducable.
Two party democracies do not represent their populace. You can't divide an entire populace into box A or box B on all issues. The two party democracy staggers back and forth from side to side never doing real compromise and never meeting in the middle. Both sides make a mess.
Money has replaced God, even in churches where the preacher stands in a 1000 dollar suit asking for cash
Money aint a score in some kind of game, you have a whole society who thinks "get rich or try dying" was a prophecy not a ignorant statement from an ex-drug dealer
you have entire TV culture based on how much you can earn (auctions/antiques/cars/houses/music), shows that glorify money, hell even some people here dont primarily choose their careers on what they will be doing, but how much its worth in cash and then openly mock Arts students and the like for their "worthless" choices while the best minds on the globe are figuring out how to get more people clicking on adverts for shitty companies with shit ideas.
may you get whats coming
...other than to disagree. Of those 7, 3 are conservatives who believe that things would be just fine if we could undo the damage those liberals have created. Three more think that Obama is too conservative and has abandoned the very people who elected him. The other one is just sick of the other six.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Statistics like that are almost enough to make you believe that people had finally worked out the practical applications of 'statistics' and 'empiricism'.
This pleasant feeling only lasts until the next barrage of polling about the existence of guardian angels or horoscopes or whether coffee enemas cure cancer; but so it goes.
In all seriousness, this article manages to have a very important point(trust is an extremely valuable asset in a society, far cheaper and more pleasant than the alternatives of investing in lots and lots of contract lawyers and prisons); but its pessimism masks the counterpoint that loss of trust isn't exactly some sort of mental pathology. If anything, continued trust in the face of getting screwed over is pathological. It is important to distinguish the trust-loss scenarios where paranoia is the problem(eg. violent crime, for most of us. It's available 24/7, anything messy that happens worldwide; but actual levels are deeply unimpressive by historical standards) and trust-loss scenarios where the problem is that they really are out to get you(If you trust banks, I have a loss-proof CDO tranche to sell you)...
I agree. I don't have any faith whatsoever in politicians, in businessmen/corporations, capitalism, the justice system, or - in particular - the media. It seems the sentiment of the day is a combination of "the end justifies the means" and "everyone for themselves".
North American culture (I live in Canada but we are much the same as the US) has become a celebration of ignorance, shallow interests, self-interest, denial of scientific fact, rabid support of political positions with little or no thought about what they mean, and a major drive to eliminate person privacy from our world. Corporations seemingly give politicians their marching orders and they go enact legislation that benefits the corporations at the expense of the people for whom the government supposedly exists. Companies who fail miserably are bailed out - and pay their CEOs massive severance packages using our money, then ship the majority of their jobs overseas by way of thanks. No one cares about the common man, its all a scrabble to get to the top walking on the bodies of those who get in the way. We fight wars based on lies for the benefit of corporations who supply the wars.
I think we have lost any moral compass - and modern religion is not going to provide that moral compass because it is seen as corrupt, power-seeking and backward in its attitudes. I think the world is far too cynical, but then I am trapped in that attitude as well.
I can't honestly think of a single politician in office today whom I believe is honest and working for the benefit of their constituents.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I wonder how much of this is related to the decline of the old media as the "gatekeepers" of information and analysis.
When you're able to get all the information and opinion you want, pre-filtered for your ideological comfort, the echo chamber seems to foster a real information tribalism. Confirmation bias ends up adding to the idea that institutions are being run by the "others" -- whose motives are necessarily corrupt/selfish/based on ignorance. Just go to any political blog/aggregator and read the comments after a particularly big SCOTUS decision - those lousy conservative/liberal justices just serving their big business/labor masters, and we need an ideological clean sweep in the next election to ensure better outcomes next time around etc etc.
When people say "I don't trust government" or "I don't trust religious institutions" what you usually find when you dig a little deeper is that what they REALLY mean is "I don't trust government from the other party or other states--but MY party/guy is great" and "I don't trust other religions/denominations/parishes by MINE is fine."
In other words, people express displeasure , but it's always for different reasons and against those they already opposed anyway--so no coherent third party ever forms and nothing ever changes.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
So are we permanently losing a 'confidence' that we once had? Arguably no. There is a schism in the world however. It's one that has existed for as long as civilization. The thirst for power, political power, personal power, economic power...and ideology and religion. Ah, the boogeyman finally appears. No matter where you look, the world is now more secular that it has been in two thousand years, and it only grows more so. Traditional gatekeepers in society are becoming less relevant, while new technology is creating new forms of control. All of this creates a climate of fear, which leads to uncertainty and pessimism.
Can technology save us from ourselves? This is the question for the ages, a question that will be answered in our lifetime; consider the pace the world is moving in. Climate change, overpopulation, increase incidences of natural disasters, and even protracted economic chaos. Most of us will live in a world of more than eight billion people. The salvation for everyone lies in our collective ability to innovate, invent, new solutions to the same old problems. Life was not that much different two thousand years ago, it was just a whole lot more boring.
"... But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems. ..."
I would argue that is the source of the problems. Why can't we just admit that you can't bring 300+ million people together on how to spend 30% of the resources. Maybe cut that down to 10% and let the other 20% go back to smaller governing bodies. We need to "draw the nation together" to agree to separate a little bit.
Currently the only real political movement in America is Ron Paul's Revolution. Regardless of what you think of him, whether he will win or not, what media says, the simple fact is that it is the Revolution is the only real political movement in America.
I want to be retired when I grow up.
It is called "Problem Reaction Solution", and it has been used over and over again to prevent the nation from being disenfranchised.
New Economic Perspectives
... you forgot how none of FDR's words actually did that much. WWII was basically what pulled the US out of the depression. Luckily, it looks like our leaders have figured that out too!
We're going to start a war with Japan and Germany?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Our system of government is broken and dysfunctional. It's in need of reform. Left or right, nobody thinks this is working as designed.
Government is not the same as country. The american people are still mostly decent people trying to get around with bloated fat bureaucrats mucking up the works.
Our biggest problem is people in charge trying to brainwash us into believing only one political party has all good ideas. There's a word for that kind on blind faith. It's called religion.
Tom Brokaw wrote about "The Greatest Generation". They were good for good's sake. Their only flaw was that they were too trusting of the succeeding generation's ethics.
The Founding Fathers of the United States saw all of this. People were just as selfish, greedy, and evil then as now. The US Constitution was the most brilliant governmental framework of all of human history. The Fathers did their best to build in self-protection for that framework, but over the years various branches of the US government have openly subverted the Constitution. The government has been giving itself more and more power over the people, rather than being a function of the people.
The problem is: We the People have been too passive. Simply voting in a new batch of the same people is not going to fix the problem. Now that money controls media and exposure (and advertising) politicians are corrupt by definition. IE: to get into politics, you MUST be evil to work the system. No truly good person would ever be able to navigate the complex mess of campaigning and winning. You have to tell lies to get elected even if you have enough money to buy enough advertising.
My hope is in the Internet's ability to allow We the People to collaborate and take control back.
My first suggestion is that we need "The People's Lobby". The People's Lobby will be a non-profit organization that will both lobby Congress AND sue and sue and sue them to do their sworn jobs and represent the PEOPLE, not corporations who can't even vote. A dollar a year per person in the US would be enough to make it happen.
But methinks Occam's Razor suggests that there is a powerful, sinister organization which is ruthlessly stamping out any leaders who even start to surface.
"The President in particular is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the people, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria Barak Obama is one of the most successful Presidents the United States has ever had... Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more wrong.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
There's a reason for that, and it has to do with their economy.
FTFY.
In case you have yet to notice, our economy hasn't been doing so well lately, all the while the military/prison industrial complex (and those who benefit from it) have been moving ahead full-steam.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Why is this article here?
It's here because the robot grader gave it an A+.
"... Journal ... wrong ... big ... public-school ... disconnect ... solve problems ... ruin ... worth all they cost ... action ..."
Yup, with those keywords it's definitely /. material.
And now, ladies and gentlebeings, we now have an answer to the age old question, How good are robo-graders?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't recall any moment in history when Americans trusted institutions like the banks or the governments. Which is why they killed-off the central bank in the early 1800s (sadly it came back in 1913), and wrote constitutions to limit government power. Americans fundamentally don't trust giving power to strangers.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm a US citizen and have voted in every major election since 1984.
I come from a US military family. Dad was a pilot in the USAF.
I'm a law-in-order guy.
I really disliked the made up invasion of Iraq, but I didn't speak out at the time. For that, I am sorry. Invading Afghanistan did make sense, but now we need to leave to let them deal with their own issues. They want our help (money), but aren't interested in our education bias and beliefs that women/girls are just as equal as men/boys. That is a long held culture/religious belief. We aren't going to change it in 10 years. Good enough - we need to take our money and leave. Until the citizens of Afghanistan choose to change, we can't help or get our wish list.
I really dislike the government watching everything in the name of preventing terrorists acts. Monitoring telephone, Internet traffic for everyone without a court order is bad. Any organization doing it needs to be held accountable to the fullest extent of law. FBI, NSA, telecommunications companies and even google, twitter, facebook, etc. - there are thousands of other companies doing this.
I really dislike having the freedom to travel impacted by organizations who are trying to prevent every possible failure from happening. It is a lost cause and the impact to our society is 100x worse than a few downed planes. The terrorists have already won since we sheep have given up so much of our freedoms. I say that everyone should be allowed to carry a 12inch knife blade on an aircraft if they like. I bet we are more polite.
President Bush started this out of fear. A scared country like the USA is bad for the entire world. We need to be open and honest, not secretive. Our welcome to all visitors was our main strength.
President Obama has been scared into retaining AND expanding the monitoring, watching, surveillance, and he's left his promises behind. It is sad. Our elected officials don't stand for freedom anymore.
Being afraid of what might happen is foolish. Our minds can come up with millions of terrible scenarios. That is not a waste of time for a small group of experts, but the rest of the country needs to not be impacted.
Don't get me started about religious beliefs that are harmful to entire segments of our population. Religion has no place in US politics. That goes for abortion, science books and gay marriages. Whether religion makes sense in other countries like Iraq or Afghanistan is not my concern.
In the next Presidential election, there isn't any candidate who I can vote for with a clear conscience. This is sad.
I will vote for the least scared politician.
23% still have confidence in banks?
I don't give a shit about us politics or us culture. This isn't in any way tech news.
I don't give a shit about your not giving a shit; "tech news" isn't the only news nerds care about. Don't like it, don't read it.
wtf is this doing on here?
I could ask the same of your post.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's time to refresh the tree of liberty?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
51% still trust Fox News with their lives, and the other 49% would die for the Huffington Post.
And the slashvertisements for the various mobile operating systems.
21st Century Renaissance Man
Have gnu, will travel.
People are always dissatisifed with how things are going lately, because they haven't got a clue how things are going or what to do about it. It's just how they feel at the moment that determines things... and there's always something new to be outraged about.
The truth is that we've got an uninformed and unengaged electorate who picks a bunch of people to run things, then immediately starts complaining about them. And whose fault is it if you don't like the politicians? It's the voters. Nobody wants to tell the people that they're the ones to blame for all of the stuff they bitch and moan about (as people would rather hear pandering lies about Washington insiders and evil big business), but they are.
You replace the current crop of voters with a group that actually bothers to get informed and refuses to tow the party line, and you'll see things change real fast. Without that, there's no particular reason for anything to change. After all, politicians want votes. If you vote for it, you're encouraging more of it.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
You mean programs that minister to ourselves and our fellow men?
Our government is so large that it becomes frustrating to the common person to sort it out. Throw in a political class which is adept at maneuvering the public so that this political class avoids being the focus of attention.
As in, the news is replete with stories about how I should be concerned about how much other people have and how they spend it. Yet I am not supposed to think the same of those in government. Where there the press should be bullying the politicians on how they spend OUR money instead they join right in and do endless stories about how other people spend THEIR own money.
A government which takes every care away from you in life so you don't have to think fully expects you not to. Unfortunately far too many people buy into that.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I think the problem is not enough people beliving in (g)od as a concept vs. Beliving in "God" as an "Proper Noun".
(g)od as a concept is the belief that there is something "better than humanity" or "something just beyond our reach that we should strive for".
Instead we have too many people on one side beliving in God as a Proper Noun and expect "him" to take care of them, and the other side wanting to place government in the role of a "Proper Noun God" that takes care of their every whim.
Instead of looking to take care of ourselves, we expect some sort of "God" to take care of us be it Jesus or the State. This causes stagnation and loss of self determination which leads people to vote for the tyrants who will "take care of them". Those same tyrants will "take care of them" but not inthe way they masses that put them in power hoped for.
We have lost our way as a society and look for the "easy way out" which is to be expected as laziness has served us humans well through evolution pressure. However, as long as we are not too lazy to take care of ourselves it will eventually work itself out, but not after copious amounts of blood are shed as the wheel of history repeats itself.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
We go through periods of economic expansion and contraction, which cycles tend to be dynamically unstable (remember popping realestate bubbles, debt bubbles etc). If society can't create sufficient active dampnening mechanism to reduce the magnitude of economic ups and downs, then people WILL find their own way to dampen the affects on them and their smaller community of family and friends using more passive means like: sharing the cost of shelter, going on a diet, etc.
I just don't, and it breaks my heart. This great and awesome thing, built by such awesome people, is now a corrupt evil cesspit. It is everything that its Founders tried to prevent.
When people are unhappy they project their dissatisfaction on their world. Some have less money to work with, some have no jobs, some have no hope of a job after graduation. The news is constantly reminding us of how everything is depressing. Proposed changes bring fears of higher taxes which leads to fears of less money when budgets are already challenged. Fear makes people lock down and avoid change. The current climate will continue until better financial times return or people decide better financial times aren't their source of happiness.
-Xen
Clearly the solution is to elect someone named Roosevelt as president.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I'll add a different argument.
The breakdown of family might also be caused because, finally, after many thousands of years, women have the right to go out, make their own money and live their own lives, instead of having to spend their days cleaning, cooking and waiting for the man of the house to get home.
Once a woman has her own skills and her own income, she can afford to stop ignoring the shortcomings of her husband and make her own choices.
But of course, it could also be because some antiquities in robes think it's wrong for consenting adults to enjoy physical pleasure without the intention of procreation. Because God forbid human beings give each other pleasure instead of grief.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
'Kyklos', meaning 'cycle' in Greek, describes the course of human political systems. In the days of the ancient Greeks the Kyklos was said to take the form of Anarchy->Monarchy->Aristocracy->Oligarchy->Democracy->Anarchy. No matter where on the cycle you start, human nature takes over and tames Anarchy, corrupts Aristocrats, steals power from the Oligarchy, and dissolves Democracy back into Anarchy again.
I'm not sure the old Kyklos works in the modern day, however. It seems to me that we started with Democracy, formed an Aristocracy out of that which has now corrupted into an Oligarchy. With people losing faith in the institutions of the Oligarchy (and thanks to the internet, able to spread their dissent and doubts), we may be headed toward Anarchy now. Or the internet may allow some leader to leverage his charisma and steer us into Monarchy. Either way, Democracy is long done and people have good reasons to worry about the future of America.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
To become president you need to get 270 electoral votes. Not the most, but 270 (or more). So what happens if you have more than two candidates and it ends up such that nobody gets 270? You have no majority and nobody wins. There's no revote or anything, instead the House of Representatives elects the president, and the Senate the vice president. Yes, really, and it happened in 1825.
Well that gives a real incentive for a two party system. With two people it is nearly impossible to not have a majority winner. It is technically possible to split the EC, but hard. However with each additional serious contender, a no-majority situation becomes increasingly likely.
Most importantly, if we do have a revolution and everybody shows up, how do we propose to avoid creating new institutions that will be as flawed and corrupt as the old ones, merely replacing the former bad actors with a fresh new crop? Historically revolutions haven't served much purpose except fulfilling the ambitions of those newly minted Immortals who seek the heads of their predecessors. If all a revolution does is replace the current One Percent with a different One Percent, I want no part of it. These institutions we're talking about are precisely what allows the One Percent to remain the One Percent.
Is there really any choice? I support Ron Paul's plan to cut 950 billion dollars and FINALLY balance the budget, but it's pretty clear Mitt Romney will be selected at the party convention. (Romney is 1st; Paul is 2nd.) So my choice is between one banker-funded man named Obama and another banker-funded man named Romney..... both of whom are pro-bombing/pro-killing. I might as well just stay home on election day, since there is not real choice.
And don't say "Vote third party." Been there; done that with Harry Browne, and it does no good. Third parties have never won any seat higher than the Congress. The president's office is always dominated by the top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrats, or Whigs v. Democrats, or Republicans v. Democrats).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
But history reminds us that America's leaders can draw the nation together to solve problems.
trollmode=on: Doesn't the US just normally start a war with a small country to solve these problems?
I wish. Split tickets = split government.
She expected the Spanish Inquisition. Which was why the English fleet was waiting in the Channel for them. Because we expected them, we didn't get them. So, for our safety, we should all expect the Spanish Inquisition. And equip our ships with the latest brass cannon. Where was I...oh yes, the powerful, sinister organisation which is ruthlessly stamping out leadership...it's called the electorate. It may be true that politics is increasingly driven by shrieking PR drones, but the electorate has to be stupid enough to listen to them, doesn't it?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's not that the institutions are (significantly) different than they used to be, but, rather, that people are more cynical. Hell -- go back to the 20's, to any manufacturing or mining town -- you could believe in those companies, because you *knew* they didn't give a damn as to whether you lived or died.
It almost seems to me that it's the other way around; now that we can afford to become somewhat complacent, now that we have time on our hands and a means for easy bi-directional communication, many have decided that "things suck." Additionally, I have to lay some of the blame on the hard-core right-wing media: to many of them, stuff *always* sucks. Government is, by definition, bad. Teachers are out to brainwash your children. Etc. (Granted that several of these themes have been held by the hard-core liberals over the years, but not since, or prior to, the 60's did they really give voice to it.)
The bottom line, I suppose, is that more media makes us more cynical.
Our society is broken not because people are (thankfully) ignoring religious dogmas. Our society is broken because of "U.S. dollar/Money God".
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
An extreme version of the Libertarian philosophy is nonsense. Extremes of socialism are just as nonsensical.
Individual autonomy must be balanced against community needs. This seems obvious. Any policy that has way too much of one, to the exclusion of the other, will lead to ruin.
An example: extreme free market capitalism (with as close to zero government regulation as possible) very quickly leads to a market that is controlled by monopolies and/or cartels The "winners" set up barriers-to-entry that prevent new competition from entering the market, even if the competitors are delivering a better product/service at a better price. A market thus controlled is no longer a free market, and all the benefits of free market capatilism go up in a puff of smoke. You can counter this by introducing some government regulation to restore competition...but too much government regulation and you are right back where you started: a controlled market that doesn't function at all.
So, in sum, one cannot judge a philosophy entirely by the disasters that an unchecked extreme application would produce. One should not reject the moderate application of its principles based entirely on the slippery slope fallacy, and one should actively avoid sliding into these very extremes when setting policies.
Simples.
Journalists rise in the system because of their access to power. (Think Rebekah Wade and Cameron in UK terms.) So a change in power structures threatens their jobs. For them, it's about getting paid.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I seem to recall reading something very similar, except for the population numbers, from someone writing around the time of Nero.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Tell that to the Syrian people.
this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
While the overall point resonates with me (we got malaise comin' out the wazoo), I'm a little suspicious of the graphic showing loss of confidence in our institutions. The starting point for comparison is June 2002, less than a year after September 11. I'd expect that the starting numbers are unusually high, because we humans tend to fall in line when faced with an external threat, and at that point we still felt very threatened.
If society can't promise benefits for joining it, its members may no longer feel bound to follow its rules
That's okay. People don't have to live by everybody else's rules, anyway. As long as people are not permitted to violate each other's rights to life, liberty, and property, people should be perfectly free to make their own rules and should not have to feel that they are "married" to every single person for 3.8 million square miles with no possibility of divorce.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
... is that we've allowed the power to shift from the instrument of the people: the Government; which may be flawed, but is still the instrument of the people, to the private, hereditary fiefdoms of the corporations and Wall Street, which now enjoy all the advantages of a feudal hierarchy without any of the responsibility that at least the oath of fealty attempted to enforce.
Check your premises.
You forgot Mac vs. Windows.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
FDR's own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, believed FDR's fiscal policy to be completely insane, and FDR himself to be a complete loon. (And the economic numbers tend to back him up.)
From Morgenthau's diary, in the seventh year of FDR's "New Deal" program (May 1939):
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."
Note this is by the Treasury Secretary himself, not (no surprise) some socialist journalist or armchair economist of the day.
Government spending does not solve economic recessions or depressions. It never has, and it never will.
More and more countries and demanding the consumption of goods and resources. This has created multiple systems to deal with an ever increases population, with a growing appetite to have what everyone else has. It's unsustainable, and the results are, hording from the rich, and quid-pro-quo from the Governments. Eventually, the whole system is going to blow up in our faces.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
He aims for real campaign finance reform, real healthcare reform, and prosecuting corporate and governmental law-breakers.
Which is why you haven't seen him on any major news outlet in the past few months other than Al Jazeera. It's not just politicians who like the status quo. Reduce the amount corporations can spend on politicians and you reduce the amount politicians can spend on advertising.
Then there's people like me, who aren't a member of any political party, and vote their conscience. So far as I'm concerned there needs to be more people who do what I do.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The Best: People decide what our government will be.
The Worst: People decide what our government will be.
Reaping what we sow. No matter how bad it gets, we all continue looking around complaining and doing the same things with even more enthusiasm.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Right now politicians are suffering a disconnect from their electorate. While they know they have to connect with voters on the Internet, they seem to view it as just another media, not realizing it is more than just that. What we're witnessing is the birth of a new form of electorate and government. Can anyone imagine the USA rewriting their constitution via the Internet, like Iceland? Do politicians actually view the Internet as useful information, or just a way to try and sway the masses to their banner? Social media is heavily under-used and under-valued in American politics (with certain exceptions). Meanwhile a good percentage of the electorate are moving forward at lightspeed into this brave new world. Is it any wonder they feel disconnected from politics, completely untrusting in the politicians that refuse to listen or relate to them? Lest we forget that most politicians are still trying to grasp the basic nature of the Internet and it's tubes. Until politics catches up to everyone else this dissatisfaction will continue. We can only hope they will figure it out sooner rather than later. In the meantime it is probably best that those Internet-savvy leader types start coming to the realization that maybe they should put their hat into the political ring, instead of just complaining about the poor quality of the current options.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
I've posted this before inthis same thread, but...
Rocky Anderson aims for real campaign finance reform, real healthcare reform, and prosecuting corporate and governmental law-breakers. Which is why you haven't seen him on any major news outlet in the past few months other than Al Jazeera. It's not just politicians who like the status quo. Reduce the amount corporations can spend on politicians and you reduce the amount politicians can spend on advertising.
There is not a vast conspiracy in as much as they don't NEED to conspire. They all have settled into a niche they like in the current ecosystem. Everyone wants to keep everything the same, and so they all contribute to it. Large corporations, politicians, the parties and the media. They all want the same thing: to keep things basically the same, which incrementally increasing spending and reducing taxes. They don't care that it's CLEARLY a train wreck in progress.
Each person in power does his or her bit to keep things as they are. They stir the pot, but only enough to keep people upset, not to cause change. Abolition will never be legal or illegal. Mexicans immigrants will never be embraced or sent packing. Campaign finance reform will never get completely killed or actually happen.
The system works. And so we are all doomed unless a force which has a different priority gets some leverage, and forces the above players to look for a new niche.
How?
I wish. Split tickets = split government.
Considering my 30 years experience in dealing with the alternative, I wonder whether or not split government would be a bad thing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We are in the middle of a long and hard recession. People are not going to be happy with what is happening because they are losing homes or their retirement funds have been ravaged, and they can't afford to buy gas for a big ole SUV. Their kids are loaded down with education debt and are living at home.
Any poll is going to turn up a lot of pissed off people in times like this,
I'd consider seeing if New England could strike out on its own and see what came of it.
Is New England a net tax consumer? I suspect it is, in which case they could not go it alone without major changes to government spending.
Oh, that's what you think? Huh, that explains a lot. If you were able to convince yourself of that, then it would be easy to the eschew common sense and ignore the logistic infeasibility that plague your assertions.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Just so you know, the US economy had been growing for a long time before WW2 started. We don't need another war to get us out of the current slump.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
People who mod parent down are either delusional or they are part of the grand scam itself.
Right, because folks who make broad, sweeping generalizations regarding entire races, with no consideration for culture or individual belief structure, presumably because of a superiority complex stemming from frustration at the minuscule dimensions of their own genitalia, are far from delusional...
Natch.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
What about the religion of anti-theism?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm not sure I understand these "trust" figures. I completely trust that banks, big business, and politicians will behave like banks, big business, and politicians. Like everyone, they will maximize their own gains at the expense of others, and take whatever advantage they can. I have complete, 100% confidence that they will behave this way.
it's pretty clear Mitt Romney will be selected at the party convention. (Romney is 1st; Paul is 2nd.)
I'm not sure by what metric you mean, but if you're talking about delegates, Paul is fourth (says Politico) behind Romney, Santorum (campaign suspended) and Gingrich (campaign apparently still chugging along for some reason Newt only knows). Paul has half as many delegates as Gingrich, about a quarter as many as Santorum, and just under a tenth as many as Romney. It's a done deal, and unsurprisingly the result is the one the "lamestream media" has been predicting since before the primary even began.
Noam Chomsky has said in the past years, "If you read the polls, it's a dream situation for union organizers and community organizers". I myself don't see any of the institutions mentioned as my institutions. The explanation in the blurb of how these institutions were built up I find as bogus.
I wouldn't use the word Marxist to describe how I look at these things, as I don't think Marx is infallible like Catholics think the pope is, but how I view things is pretty much as he said. I think the central, most important institution in society in the modern world is big business. It is what gets workers out of bed five days a week, it determines if people are employed (I won't go off on tangents like why big business is more important than small business, with examples like how when I grew up there were small, family-run hardware stores and hardware suppliers, a great deal of whom have been put out of business by Home Depots and Lowe's popping up superstores). Organized labor and parties running for Congress can stand in opposition to big business (although that's complex as well).
This central relationship in society, big business or capital, against weaker, newer, less organized organizations such as organized labor, occupy protests, political parties which represent the needs of working people - this can be called the base. Then there is what can be called the superstructure - the institutions which support the base, but indirectly. The chart is full of superstructure institutions - congress, television news, criminal-justice system, newspapers, public school system, presidency, supreme court, churches and police. These are all institutions of the ruling power, big business, but indirectly. It's obvious how congress is. Television news and newspapers are owned by big business - GE, Viacom, News Corp. Churches are more indirect. "Work hard all your life and don't rock the boat, even if your kids are poor and you get nothing except back breaking work, your reward will be in the 'next life'". This and all that type of bullshit is exactly what you conjure up to get a docile working class who will slave away for you without complaint.
The economic system we live in can't handle the economy - just look at Europe, or even unemployment in the US. Marx predicted that capitalism couldn't control the economy a century and a half ago - he said over time, our economic crises would get worse and worse until we have another 1930s type situation where they really break down. You can read Capital to see why this happens. Workers would become *alienated* from their institutions.
He saw a whole history of societies with economic relations - hunter-gatherer bands, Roman and Greek slave societies, Middle Ages feudalism, collapse when superior organizational forces organized a new form of society. Albert Einstein goes into this a little in "Why socialism?" Since it's for a future society no one knows what the post-capitalist society will be like. Only that the majority of the working class will have to be organized to fight for the new idea. What it will be depends - there's even a right-wing variation of this in national socialism and fascism. Social democrats (used to) believe we'd go to socialism, but gradually, without "revolution". Communists believed in organizing Marxist-Leninist political parties and aligned unions, and different strategies, which often included revolution. Anarcho-syndicalists beleive in organizing all workers into one big union who would liberate themselves, without soc-dem politicians or communist party commissars. And so on.
The whole question is, who will be the elite group that organizes the workers to fight against capitalism and for the new system. Or will there be an elite group - will anarchists have workers liberate themselves? What direction will they try to move society in? No matter how weak capitalism is, and how it can't provide for basic needs, with worse and worse crises as time goes on, without some group becoming self-aware, and organizing
The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.
~ Lord Acton (of absolute power corrupts absolutely fame)
Capital must protect itself in every way... Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capitalism to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd.
~ JP Morgan
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
~ John Maynard Keynes, 1920
All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.
~ John Adams
Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's fields by the sweat of the poor man's brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation--these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with a fraudulent currency and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice. and the intolerable oppression on the virtuous and well-disposed of a degraded paper currency authorized by law or in any way countenanced by government. It is one of the most successful devices, in times of peace or war, of expansions or revulsions, to accomplish the transfer of all the precious metals from the great mass of the people into the hands of the few, where they are hoarded in secret places or deposited under bolts and bars, while the people are left to endure all the inconvenience, sacrifice, and demoralization resulting from the use of depreciated and worthless paper.
~ Andrew Johnson - 1868 State of the union address (apparently he was quoting Daniel Webster) - also quoted by Nelson Aldrich, architect of the Federal Reserve system
100 Million Dollar Penny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dl1y-zBAFg
The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out.
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments.
Stop focussing on winning, and then maybe you can experience victory. Winning isn't everything -- affecting the dialogue is important and can lead to real change, and THAT is victory. With a few losses for the major parties (to the other side), it won't take a brilliant partisan hack to realize that selling out their constituency is not the way to win elections, and because the Repubs and Dems are concerned primarily with winning, not issues, they will adjust their issues to win back dissidents. But your voice won't be heard if you join the masses of disinterested by not voting. A protest vote, even though you know your candidate will lose, has value and the more people who realize that, the more likely we will see change. Not this year, not in four years, not in eight -- but long term. It is the short-term lesser-evil thinking that is the true evil.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
And don't say "Vote third party." Been there; done that
So, you'd rather vote for a party you dislike instead of a party that you might prefer, because the party you prefer has no chance of getting seats? That makes no sense to me.
I think of voting 3rd party as a non-confidence vote in one of the two major parties. That, in my opinion, feels less like a wasted vote than voting for the wrong party.
(We have the same problem in my country: both major candidates are... poor, to say the least, almost to the point of desperation.)
And by doing that you are failing the system.
Take the concept of single issue candidates. Let's assume someone stood with the only policy of "stop the killing" and all the disenfranchised 25% did turn out and vote for that person.
Romney at the election BTW gets 31% of the vote and Obama gets 29% of the vote. You don't think Obama in that case wouldn't after the election say "Smeg if i had been anti-war i might have won that election, it clearly really mattered to the voters and would have probably won me the election"
Suddenly the media is talking about how important the anti war movement is and how it is something that really matters to voters.
etc.
The next election suddenly everyone is falling over themselves to be as antiwar as possible because they see it as a way to win the election.
Okay i exaggerate above but you get the idea. A vote is never wasted except when it isn't used. Even if you vote monster raving loony party you still are making a clear point to the politicians. If they believe that people don't care they won't cater to you, if there is a vote to be won they will listen because if they don't you can vote them out.
As an alternative try looking at democracy not as a way to get in the people who you want, but to get rid of people who screw things up.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Don't feed the trolls. It's embarrassing enough that he posted in my thread.
I have a different opinion than most of the posters here on the problem with the U.S. policy machine and electorate right now. I think it has to do with the ideology of unity, i.e. that we are the "United" States of America, that we are basically all the same, that we share interests and goals, that we are all in this together.
This is untrue, but here and elsewhere, I see no national awareness on the part of the political machine or the electorate that there is basically no unity and no way to achieve it. If we could all acknowledge that, there would be an understanding of the need for compromise.
Instead, over and over again I see people assuming that their understanding of what is wrong is shared by virtually everyone, and that if virtually everyone knows what's wrong but it hasn't been fixed yet, it must be because of those "other" people that are in the minority but that are somehow pulling the strings in "today's America" and are somehow corrupt/oppressive/dangerous/evil.
Just in this discussion I see people saying that the problem is obviously:
Franklin Delanor Roosevelt
The Welfare State
Religion
The end of religion
The pill
The wrong understanding of God
Selfish banks
Selfish politicians
Selfish media
Poor public education
Global overpopulation
Technological malaise
Money
Bureaucracy
Liberals
Conservatives
Libertarians
An active sense of entitlement
An overly passive population
Centralized government
The absence of an external threat
Feudalism
Lawyers
Cynicism
Capitalism
The decline of the family
The decline of values
Consumerism
and so on.
And each presents the argument as if it's authoritative. And many seem to imply that there is some kind of majority involved ("More and more countries..." "The American public..." "we this..." "we that...")
The framing in terms of "we" or in phrases that imply a majority place everyone that disagrees outside of a presumed collective. I see this on both sides of the political aisle right now. In 2011 I lived both in New York City (very liberal) and in Utah (very conservative) and both populations have the same certainty, with a different focus.
For the New Yorkers in lower Manhattan, it's obvious that America has had it with a tiny minority of crazy conservatives trying to destroy the nation, and if Obama doesn't win the next election, it's because this minority has stolen it from the American people. For the Utahns, it's obvious that America has had it with a tiny minority of crazy socialists trying to turn America into the Soviet Union with Islamist tendencies, and if Obama wins the next election, it's because this minority has stolen it from the American people.
Both refer to American values and American history constantly, but totally different versions of these.
There is limited or no understanding that monotheism and polytheism and atheism are all American values, that black slaves and white colonialists and native tribes are all "founding members" of our present society in some way, that the populace includes sizable blocks of both highly conservative pro-life, pro-national religion, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant libertarians and highly socially liberal pro-choice, pro-secularism, pro-feminist pro-immigration social democrats, and everything in between.
Somehow the "melting pot narrative" has broken down and the Utahns imagine that "most Americans" drive a truck, own horses, have a rifle under their seat, and are married with children and mom staying at home while dad plays provider, while the lower Manhattanites know that "most Americans" take public transportation, are more and more concerned with global warming and local green economies, are down on cars and big oil and guns, and are living in "alternative" family situations to that "traditional narrative that was never representative anyway."
When told about the other side by me, people in both groups had the tendency to say about the other that "those people just c
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The real issue here isn't a lack of trust -- it's a lack of maturity.
Life isn't fair. All the democracy in all the world isn't going to make it so. All the progressive mandates and sweeping government programs/reforms won't make it so. All the freedom and conservative/religious values won't make it so.
The reason everyone feels betrayed is because, down deep in their hearts, they think that life should be fair, and they should get "what they deserve," despite everything going on around them. Maturity is recognizing that bad stuff is gonna happen to you, it isn't your fault, and thats okay. Thats why you have friends, family, and a small local community. That is who is supposed to pick you up when you fall down, just like you pick them up when they fall.
The rub is that being a part of a community requires commitment, maturity, and humility. You can't be a member of a community when its convenient for you, and then not when its a hassle. You have to be willing to forget your grudges and help other members of the community, even those you may not personally like very much. You have to be grateful for the help that others give, and recognize you haven't earned it. You have to be able to swallow your pride, accept help from others, and recognize you don't deserve it.
I don't blame the political system for our current "woes". I blame a citizenship with collective emotional maturity of a 13-year-old girl, constantly screaming "That's not fair! I'm not a little kid any more!"
The best thing we can do is to eliminate religions. All of them. Religions have been responsible for stoping progress, scientific discoveries, medical improvements, etc., while at the same time being responsible for the deaths of millions.
"Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings."
Interesting that you should say that, considering that Protestant groups were instrumental in setting up universities in the US.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Politicians and diapers should be changed often. Both for the same reason.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
budget and account failing government where our taxes are to be spent, each tax payer regarding the taxes they pay..
We USians mostly are still decent people, but we willingly take bribes in the forms of mortgage writeoffs, artificially low gasoline prices, and indefensible tax cuts for the wealthy (believing we unwealthy will magically become rich if the already rich are coddled), along with being okay for all the killing in the name of this unsustainable consumerism. This is why moronic corporate-owned entertainment is so important to Joe Consumer: to help drown out the inner voice shouting that this is all wrong.
You must be great f---aw, nevermind.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Looking at the articles list of what we have lost faith in there are a few things that make sense.
Church and Religion, after 911, with two wars, with a depression, of course people turn to religion because they offer a framework to feel good in.
HMO's because they take care of our illnesses and improve our heath.
Criminal Justice system because that (like doctors) are the people and institution we rely on as the last resort to bring justice. Which in this time of Gun crazy violence, Bernie Madoff thefts, embezzlement by public officials we have to rely on.
So what factors since 2002 might lead to the rest of the downturn in confidence.
Changes in laws that allow search and seizures that didn't happen before, which might explain the police downturn, add a few prominent torture cases in the news and maybe a gun related shooting in Florida with no investigation or arrest and that might explain some of that.
Two wars, (one because of a lie), thousands dead, tens of thousands of our solders damaged, hundreds of thousand civilian casualties. Maybe that explains some of the military downturn.
Pushes to de-fund public schools, breaking of unions, the no-child left behind fiasco, the leaving of the high paying manufacturing jobs, leaving less reason for education being economically important for business, add a dash of creationism idiocy into some public schools, and a youth culture that had turned away from eduction as a positive value and the whole system being pressured by the right wing with the agenda of making it fail so they can start making money off that segment of the market at the same time teaching their own brand of education, might explain some of that downturn.
The intense campaign to get rid of manufacturing, bust Unions by the right wing (starting with the public sector) is part of their move to increase the value of ownership at the expense of the workers that make them their money. They just don't want to share the wealth. Which both explains the downturn in Union and Big Business. But of course Big Business has been caught red handed polluting , perpetrating fraud (ENRON), Destroying the environment on a mass scale (Gulf).
The Presidency has had one president (Bush) that nearly bankrupted us with two wars and a tax cut, plus Tarp (with no strings to Wall Street, are they for real) and an economic collapse. Then the Right Wing Hate Machine trying desperately to blame Obama for the mess Bush and his party got us into. The lack of respect that the Republicans show for the office of the President does not help. I wonder if they think if they get into office, anyone is going to show them any more respect or if they are going to follow the Republican example?
Banks have been hard pressed because of low fed funds rates, they have had to start charging fees to make some profit because the don't have the interest spreads they used to to siphon off some profit from accounts, no one likes fee's, add the foreclosure fallout of their bad decisions and you have a good explanation for bad Bank confidence (oh yes and a few bank failures to boot).
Well Congress has been miss-behaving for years, more so lately with the blatant lack of any responsibility to the country to govern using our two party system. This no compromise on ultra right wing principles has left the country legislatively leaderless. It is remarkable that Obama has been able to get any good legislation through.
The "Left Wing Media" is a myth. It is really corporate media controlled by about 5 companies and they have stopped doing journalism and they filter on conservative ideology and sensationalism as exampled by the almost total lack of coverage of the tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens that were protesting Scott Walker initially. Many news casts ignored that rather large and important news story, which was unprecedented in recent years. But the right wing keeps crying "Left Wing Media", "Left Wing Media". They would probably accuse Regan of being "Left Wing" as well. Its all
Unfortunately more expensive.
You could Google it.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/fooddrink/a/wormburgers.htm
Well I've got an idea for you Americans, see if you like it:
You're going to have presidential elections in November.
Form a national political party with only one single goal: constitutional reform so that the voting changes to the more normal multi-party system that all democracies in the world use (except for USA, UK and I believe a few more UK-commonwealth states).
Make sure to solemnly pledge to relinquish power and hold new elections once the constitution has been adapted for the new voting system.
You're only thinking that your current system is normal and/or effective because you grew up with it, and because your closest allies the UK and Canada have the same broken system (the UK Lib Dems *could* have changed all that but for some reason decided not to, now that they finally have a coalition government).
Wikipedia links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
"Breakdown of the family" = shock-and-horror code for "having a family no longer guarantees women's subjugation to men"
"Immorality" = shock-and-horror code for "women get to enjoy sex, too"
Maybe you need to chain your woman to the stove and/or bed, but mine stays with me by her own volition. She's free to leave anytime she wants. This means, if I want to keep her, I'd best give her good reason to want to stay. Doing my best to treat her with respect, and as an equal partner in our relationship, seems to be working pretty well so far to that end.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
You sound like a politician, using over-broad generalizations to create a strawman that you can then easily tear apart. Which is one of the things that is so wrong with US politics these days.
C|N>K
Ok. Mr. Billionaire,
Move to Mars.
And when you want a blowjob, what will you do?
Deejah Thoris.
Too bad no one, probably including most religious people, actually adhere to their own religion anyway.
They are just hard working people who help people check out books and find good things to read....
Oh what...?! Libertarians...!
That's very different. Nevermind.
And when asked why there was only one set of footprints in the sand, Jesus replied, "The sand people ride single file to conceal their numbers."
I don't think he's a troll.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Paul won about 400 delegates in the caucus states which the corporate-owned media is not crediting to his count (deliberately I suspect, in order to mislead folks like you into thinking he's 4th). Once you count the caucus delegates instead of pretending they don't exist, it puts Paul in a strong 2nd place.
And now that Santorum and Huntsman dropped-out, those delegates are "released" and can vote for whomever they want. I suspect most of them are anti-Romney and will not vote for him at the convention.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
40 years of the Libertarian Party as the largest party after the D's and R's, and you casting your vote for them. Has anything changed? Nope. If anything it's gotten worse with less liberty and more tyranny. The LP's had no influence at the national level.
I can see the value in voting LP for state legislatures and congress in hopes of getting a 3rd party in the building, but at the presidential level? No. Since 1792 no third party has ever won the top seat.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
With so many of this country's processes running wild, and such unfair load-balancing going on, I suggest we ask the linux kernel developers for help.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The answer to your question is that, IMHO, this is not much of a story. Yes, there is both apathy and discontent-- I'm no exception. But if my time at the university taught me anything, it taught me that this is a normal, and often healthy, part of the human condition.
AFAIC every problem with economics, wars, politics can be traced directly to the policies of the millionaire, former POTUS, Theodore Roosevelt.
That is the guy who started the entire 'bread and circuses' pitch while in reality preparing the country to completely get off the right track, free the government from the chains of the law above it - the Constitution, allow the government to grow by making sure that enough of the bread and circuses agenda is created that people forget about the only thing that matters - individual liberty.
Every new cabinet position, every new regulation and law pushed by the executive branch, the taking over the SCOTUS with political agenda and complete divergence from the only principle that the Court must abide by, the cancerous growth of government thanks to every new type of income tax (from personal to payroll and corporate, there are at least 4 types of personal income taxes today in USA and losses from one cannot be subtracted from gains in another), to the successful re-introduction of the Fed, (which initially was NOT allowed to monetise US Treasury debt, but that changed quickly enough and the fake idea of 'debt ceiling' was introduced).
Theodore Roosevelt set the stage for the destruction of USA.
You can't handle the truth.
"get rich or try dying" or "get rich or die trying" both work.
"get rich tie-dying" is, on the other hand, a hippy myth.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Except in the case of a presidential election, if your protest vote is for a candidate with no chance, it has the potential to help elect your third choice instead of your second. This does much more damage to voter satisfaction than simply voting for candidates with a chance to win.
What America needs is a change in voting system so we don't lose information from voters who have more than one candidate they would be satisfied with.
>>>Let's assume someone stood with the only policy of "stop the killing" and all the disenfranchised 25% did turn out and vote for that person.
Nice dream world. In 4 decades of existence, the LP presidential candidate has never done any better than 1/4%. Easilly ignored by the population and media, and not once affecting an election's outcome.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
inb4
gb2/b/
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Social Security, the easiest social contract we have to hold and uphold, has been RAIDED - 4T and counting, already GONE. There is no money saved and accruing interest and keeping up with inflation. It's all paid for out of the general fund with loans from China and the rich in this country who are just sucking the life out of all of us. Medicare, medicaid - way worse shape - was there ever a trust fund that was funded for those programs?
What about the social contract the nation has with me? I consider it long since broken!
So, sorry, I'm playing along with your stupid contract charade right now because I have to. (Where else am I going to live, right?) But I yearn for the collapse to come. End the immoral thievery.
Then get active and start pushing for "instant run-off" voting. With that in place, we can vote according to our conscience and not "waste" our votes. While I believe that Ron Paul is a racist and a borderline idiot when it comes to economic policy, I'd love to have seen him and others like him have the power to put serious pressure on those of the so-called "two party" system. Without something like instant run-off, we're never going to see it.
As you said Wikipedia is just linking to the GOP; there's no motive there. Unfortunately the GOP is ALSO guilty of pretending the caucus states (like Iowa, Nevada, Maine, etc) do not exist and not rewarding the delegates to anybody. It's lying through omission.
BTW I hope you enjoy having Mitt Romney for your president, and don't regret voting for him. He'll simply continue the same policies as Obama followed... just as Obama followed the policies of Bush. (War, increasing debt, eroding of your freedom.) Romney will not make any real change to the current path.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
What about your local politicians? What about your state legislator? What about your Representative and your Senator? If you want to change things it requires a couple of things. You need to get involved in local politics and know who your local and state representatives are. You need to get involved in the local Party activities (choose one) including the primaries. You need to get your friends and neighbors active in the same things. Most of all, you need patience. It didn't get this way in one election cycle. It isn't going to get fixed in one election cycle.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You say that voting for third party candidates does no good, but you proceed to show that the nations top 2 parties have not always been the same. There was some point in time when Whigs were a third party, and then they were one of the top two.
What I'm trying to say is that the precedent set is that someday a third party may rise up and knock one of the current two parties out of power. That will never happen if you give up and think it's useless to vote for them.
Are you one of CmdTaco's former acolytes?
<HomerSimpsonVoice>
Mmmm, karma....
</HomerSimpsonVoice>
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To quote the Italian lady in the old joke, yelling at the pope when he condemned birth control. "You no play da game, you no make-a da rules!". It seems very strange to me to take advice on separating procreation and pleasure in sex from a group of people who have no first hand knowledge of either. Also, it seems counterproductive at best, and possibly immoral, to condemn contraception and abortion in the same breath, when safe easy to access contraception is known to reduce abortion rates, and "Abstinence only" does the opposite. Doing "What God says is right" in no way absolves you of the responsibility for the outcomes of your actions.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Patriotism, Nationalism, Faithfulness, etc,
Are just some of the ways that the powerful cynically manipulate the average rubes to their own ends.
The biggest myth:
Fighting for freedom = Freedom? from what? for whom? where? And who are we fighting? Some poor, literate tribesman who's village just got destroyed by "mistake"? Is he going to attack "us"? And how many times will the American public fall for this in recent history? Since WW2 the last REAL war, we've had "and lost" Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Somalia, Iraq-1 (Big parade), Iraq-2 (we did not actually win anything), Afghanistan!
All any of the little exercises in deadly futility accomplish is to make HUGE profits for the mega corporations that give freely to the whores on capital hill!
Peace is not profitable!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
This is why our system was designed with the most power with the people, then the local government, then the state, and finally leaving the federal government with very specifically-defined powers necessary to keep the overall peace between states and provide for the common defense.
Now the fed has taken most of the power, so our system isn't really working all that well anymore.
At the height of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt chastised the business and political leaders who had led the country into ruin. 'These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men,' said FDR. 'Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.'
FDR tried demonizing big business in America. Then business went on a capital strike, and FDR got whacked in the 1938 midterms. Then FDR changed his tune, and realized he shouldn't try to kill the golden goose, and actually backed off and courted business. This is similar to what is happening now, as companies sit on profits and don't expand or hire. Unfortunately, Obama isn't as smart or pragmatic as FDR, and didn't learn from his 2010 midterm spanking.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
... not because of government.
There is a nagging feeling of nihilism today. That nothing we do as an individual matters - including voting. That is a HUGE problem. People, in general, are busy going about their lives. When we do vote, we try to make good decisions. But it doesn't seem to make any difference. Time and time again, politicians have shown that any trust the public puts in them is horribly misplaced.
Like the old adage says: Anyone who actually wants to be President, should not be elected.
Where formal law and courts exist, it is Sharia law. Other than that, they have Xeer, a tribal-centric system of law. Neither of these are very libertarian, and they are not enforced throughout the country.
About the biggest part the state plays in libertarianism is enforcement and validation of contracts between individuals. That doesn't exist in most places in Somalia. It's the rule of the more powerful over the weaker. The biggest prohibition of libertarianism is that use of force.
You can describe Somalia in many ways, but it definitely is not even close to libertarian.
What America needs is a change in voting system
I agree, but its a chicken and the egg problem, as it will take a third party to get such a change to happen.
it has the potential to help elect your third choice instead of your second
Stop thinking in terms of 4 years, if you want permanent change each election is progress, not the end-all-be-all. A lot of people would vote for third parties but declare that the sub X% support makes it a waste, and they vote for a leading candidate. If you vote for a third party anyways, you help reach someone's X%, and help get the momentum going. The occasional worse candidate winning due to a spoiled vote is a small loss compared to the huge gain we get when we finally get voting reform. The only way to win is to vote 3rd party continuously until the two-party system has been thoroughly broken.
My webcomic
Not really. All it'll take is being pushed outside of your comfort zone. With China ascending towards world leader status and the US economy continuing to tailspin reality should reinforce itself over ideology in a decade or so.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Are you seriously telling me that Ron Paul, or at least the enthusiasm for Ron Paul, has not changed the discussion during the Republican Primaries? Do you not notice how the subject has shifted away from actually real budget cuts since Fox News has started getting away with not even mentioning his name?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As a place to put your money that's safer than in your mattress? Probably
As somebody to manage the financial system (including investments, etc) in an honest manner that's in the best interest of the average person? Probably not
I would really like to see what the US could come up with if all those people who simply don't go to the polling booth actually did. If they all voted for a third party candidate, that candidate would probably win even if everyone else voted for the parties they always voted for...
And don't say "Vote third party." Been there; done that with Harry Browne, and it does no good. Third parties have never won any seat higher than the Congress. The president's office is always dominated by the top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrats, or Whigs v. Democrats, or Republicans v. Democrats).
Even so, voting third party is strictly better than not voting at all: if enough people vote third party, you might actually see one of them elected (obviously more likely to happen first on local/state levels). If enough people don't vote at all, nothing changes.
Also, while the federal level has historically been dominated by two parties, it hasn't always been the same two parties, as evident from your list. Don't think the current duopoly will last forever.
That would be "US government will accomplish in your country what you don't want but should!"
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I don't particularly see people "turning away from their social contract" or "refocusing inward." Instead, they'll refocus towards a different social contract. Ie: they'll form new groups that closer suit their needs. Gangs in the offline world, guilds/etc online.
Of course this is nothing surprising or new. History has many many examples where populations have turned away from the powers that be and created their own new groups -- heck the USA was founded based on this sort of thing!
They shouldn't be looking at this as a social evolution, but as the potential vague stirrings of political revolution. Those in power are getting further and further out of step with the common people, and eventually things will have to change, one way or another.
(And "people are by themselves on computers" isn't a very good argument, and never has been. Most everyone who are on computers are having their own online social lives. Perhaps not as physically exerting as an offline social life but its no less real a connection for those involved. The relatively sudden popularity of social media shows just how easy the transition from offline to online can be. All it took for a significant portion of the population to realize this was a sufficiently intuitive UI.)
Until we have a different choice, yes nothing will change. One odd thing about America. We love an underdog unless that dog is running for office. Then we only want the most popular and prettiest winner.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
Maybe this is because they are Republicans, College Student Edition.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You claim's there's no real choice, but there is a real difference. You mention:
- Being banker-funded. If you're worried about runaway / unaccountable financial corporations, choose the candidate trying to regulate them instead of free them up even more.
- Bombing / killing. Choose the candidate ending wars and doing less saber rattling about Iran.
I don't like that they're so similar, but there are real differences.
And if you want to balance the budget, look to how it was done last time. It wasn't all that long ago, so it's not like we have to go back to the founders and wonder if it's work in modern times.
I don't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, because he sees people as individuals and not as groups. People often bring up the newsletters (which he did not write) but you'll never hear a racist remark come out of his mouth.
22 Reasons Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism
As for policies, you aren't likely to find a person who agrees with you 100%, but it might be a good idea to take a look at a man who had foresight into the problems that we've been having.
This speech was made 10 years ago. It shows that many of Ron Paul's predictions have come true. Whatever you think of the man, I encourage you at least check this out:
Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original)
I have bank accounts that are FDIC-insured. Works well. No bank runs. Whatever happens at that bank, I get my money back, guaranteed by the U.S. Government.
If you include other types of accounts and financial institutions, we have the example of MF Global. The MFers literally stole $1.2 Billion from their customers' accounts and it's looking like those customers are SOL and the perpetrators will avoid jail time and keep all those fat bonuses for the great job they did.
it's what you'll get. Libertarianism is used by the powers that be to encourage you to pointless acts of self reliance; like voting against unemployment insurance or single payer healthcare. It's also used for Dog Whistling to being the racists out without a backlash. You might not like it, but that's the practical effect of your ideals. You're signing away on any sort of security.
:) ). Anyway, the article ended with a good point, which was:
Then again That's OK, because you're doing OK right now. There was an article recently about a right wing senator that forgot to cherry pick his audience for a town hall and was grilled pretty bad on healthcare (The highlight of the whole thing was when he tried to say the US has the lowest mortality rate in the world, which is patently false. He's a Doctor, and someone called him on it
"Conservatives are the sort of people that don't believe anything unless they see and feel it first hand for themselves. He's alive and well and has great Government healthcare. Hey, what's the problem?"
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm still not sure how you're coming up with your numbers. Here's a chart of the delegates awarded so far:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
It includes the caucus states and the delegates that have yet to be awarded. Even if all of the unawarded delegates in the states that have held contests so far were awarded to Paul he'd still be well behind Romney, though he'd be giving Gingrich a run for his money. Granted, Paul winning is is still mathematically possible, and as much as I would like to see him beat Romney (and Santorum and Gingrich) I just don't see it happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
"[Toynbee] argues that in this environment, people resort to archaism (idealization of the past), futurism (idealization of the future), detachment (removal of oneself from the realities of a decaying world), and transcendence (meeting the challenges of the decaying civilization with new insight, as a Prophet)."
That just about sums up so much slashdot discussion? :-)
More on that theme by me: http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/e34f9013282af9d7?hl=en
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You're darling. Look at you thinking a bunch of weekend warriors with rifles are going to do anything against a modern military (except get shot).
If you don't like being oppressed, you need something more than "Freedom". You need economic security. The reason those people don't speak out is they're just barely hanging on (Seriously. Studies shows less than 50% of Americans could weather a $1000 critical expense). That's real oppression. You want security? You need health care a guaranteed right and basic income to weather tough times when the rich crash our economy. The trouble with Libertarians is all they get is paradise
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That figure really surprised me -- that 79% trust the military, down from 80% in 2002, which is to say it's basically unchanged. It's apparently the most trusted social institution in the US listed in that survey.
I don't know what to make of it, but it does seem rather ominous.
Communities are small scale: neighbors or parts of a town. If you're looking for for a sense of community, then help and activity has to be local. If support comes at federal and state level, community action is undermined and breaks. That leftists like Wilson, the Roosevelts, and Obama talk community but force federal power is the apex of hypocrisy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
70% disbelieve the country is on the right track
80% are dissatisfied with the pattern of governance
23% have confidence in banks
19% have confidence in big business
< 50% have "a great deal" of confidence in, schools, and religions
Sounds like an excellent recipe of statistics to confuse the shit out of most anyone.
And who is to blame for that? The voters.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Compared to 12 years ago, there is very little going on in computer tech these days.
Operating system development progress is very slow. Remember 12 years ago how hot those discussions were? nowadays most design decisions have been cast in stone and the only field of discussion are minor incremental changes to established OSes.
Programming language development has also been very slow. New programming languages are attempts to clean up the old ones, or too obscure for every day use. 12 years ago we were still discussing the merits of objected oriented code, and Java was fresh.
The desktop application space is saturated beyond belief. There has not been a hot desktop application for years now. Microsoft Office, Photoshop, all the established desktop applications offer way more features than needed.
Mobile operating systems are scaled down versions of desktop ones. There is motion in the mobile world, but it just does not justify talking about tech 24/7.
In the server and big distributed application space, the solutions and problems are well known for many years now, and since big companies offer cloud services, a new company does not have to do anything in that domain except to rent cloud space.
The hard problems of computer science seem to be unsolvable at the moment. Do not hold your breath for real time raytracing, human-like AI, human-like voice recognition, or flying cars.
So, what is left? big social problems, who are mounting like never before.
I do not have a problem with Slashdot presenting these topics. Slashdot discussions are still some of the top discussions online, in quality. Slashdotters are some of the cleverest and most educated and enlightened people, and this discussion is a very good example of that.
If progress in computer science and IT picks up again, I am certain Slashdot will be flooded with relevant topics. Until then, discussing social issues isn't that bad.
I'd go further and say that "people trust the groups and institutions that they feel/think benefit them."
If they don't think it benefits them, if they're not educated about how it does good for them or (conversely) are educated enough to see that things they "should trust" are hurting them, then they won't.
-
Anagama makes a good point. Especially since there is a non-trivial overlap between what libertarians and liberals believe in: Civil liberties as in freedom on the Internet, no government intrusion into private life, legalizing soft drugs, no more wasting money on policing the globe.
Non-partisan, policy focused groups can have a function as a check on power. E.g. love 'em or hate'em but the NRA has been playing this game very well.
IOWA 13 (Romney) 13 (Santorum) 1 (Paul)
Way to cite a link that is so obviously wrong. The polling in Iowa was essentially a tie between these three men, so it should be 9-9-9. THIS is exactly what I was talking about when I said the media is either lying about the count, or omitting the caucus states as if they don't exist.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
UPDATE:
IOWA 13 (Romney) 13 (Santorum) 1 (Paul)
Way to cite a link that is so obviously wrong. It is now confirmed, by a recount reported by NBC's Rachel Maddow, that Paul walked off with half the delegates in Iowa and Minnesota. That's 14 delegates, not 1.
Any news organization that claims in their "count" that Paul got less than half in these two states is lying to you. (Sorry to be blunt but a lie if a lie... I call it what it is.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Citation: NBC's Rachel Maddow. She says Paul won 14 delegates in Iowa, not the 1 the NYT is claiming.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
You probably don't have a problem with this picture
Yep, $400 purse, $200 wallet, $800 in cash and ... food stamps. I don't know about you, but this is a serious WTF? moment for me.
No, this is not some crazy statistical outlier. This is commonplace, living large off of funny money. What the hell, it's not yours, blow it like you want, there's plenty more where that came from.
The problem is that money did come from somewhere. It either came out of somebody's pocket now as taxes, or out of somebody's pocket later as current debt. Liberals tend to forget that money has to come from SOMEWHERE.