Pardon my cynicism, but those in power don't tend to really give a crap about what's good for citizens or what they want. To manage a smooth society, they have to make sure the classes under them are happy - but it is far from their first concern. Their first concern is to make *their* bosses happy.
And the overall purpose of laws is to tell citizens what to do, for the benefit of those in power. And those in power are both formal officials and those in the same social / economic class. So, one thing the rulers of *any* society absolutely do not want, is their laws to be vetted and determined by those who are *not* in their class, such as the other 98% of that population.
So, an inefficient law-creation process with no adequate testing period or prior review by those who'd be subject to the laws, and as much of a lack of involvement with the subjects as possible, is kind of how the rulers of any nation like it. And, although we do live in a democracy, our leaders do have that tendency as well.
Case in point: NAFTA. That bill was practically hidden from the citizens by both the direct rulers in D.C. *and* the media, before it was passed. This was because they all knew it was to *their* benefit as rulers, and straight talk about it's intentions and it's likely effects on the working class would keep it from being passed. This was *both* Democrats and Republicans, working together for their social / economic class. Joining hands across the aisle, in the true spirit of bipartisanship: shafting the US working class.
As for how the media is involved in this, it doesn't require conspiracy at all; the media is run by wealthy people, and wealthy people, like all people, will not spread information that is not in their perceived best interest. No conspiracy required, just interests in common.
This sort of law review is still a great idea. But it or something like it will probably have to be done by private citizens. It could be done in just such a way as this article describes, perhaps by a "Consumer Reports" type of situation. And perhaps with sufficient economic modeling algorithms, it could end up being a useful tool for the ruling class at well - allowing some laws which actually do benefit citizens to at least be less watered down by the time they emerge from D.C.
OK re: civil servants, as long as they actually don't benefit from their positions, by laws that are enforced.
For example, if anyone who serves on a board like the FCC can't get hired by or take money from media corporations for at least, say, 5 years, and must be fully divested in order to serve.
Otherwise, bug included, at least those who are voted in can be voted out - and the monopolistic media aided by the unelected FCC apparatchik's here is to the great benefit of those politicians who lie.
*Trying* to do something is always more likely to succeed than doing nothing, wouldn't you agree? Doing nothing has a zero chance of changing anything. Even if the odds are long, trying to do something does succeed - because eventually things do work right.
For example, here it looks like Dodd was able to win the battle. Now I'm aware that this is a battle in a long war - but it's a battle that was won.
People can stand up and do the right thing against long odds and **win**. In fact it's the only way positive change happens this world. I'm for making things better for everyone; and there's selfishness in that, as that means things are better for me. I'm sure you want a better world for yourself and others too. Take heart - sometimes good guys actually do win. And it's worth fighting just for those times, besides being able to feel like, whatever happend, you've done all you can to make a better world.
So, let's just give and do whatever corporations want, then? Freedom, who cares? The effort is just too inconvenient?
To quote Jello Biafra, "Give me convenience or give me death?"
I totally disagree with this outlook; I view it as self-defeating fatalism. US courts still have the power to affect corporations, and they have this power (and we keep our freedoms) to the extent that we stand up for our rights.
It's happened already. In Philipsburg NJ, a couple of civic-minded @$$holes broke into a house to beat up a Megan's law listed sex offender - but the guy they beat up had nothing to do with any sex offense ever.
This was an early case, and the county government screwed up - they took the extra step of delivering flyers to the neighborhood, freaking everyone out and thus whipping up a lynch mob. Nevertheless, the same principle stands. Yes, people have a right to know, but they don't have a right to pre-emptively use violence. Practical as well as moral reasons.
There's a reason why we give law enforcement to the police. They can make mistakes like anybody else - but who the hell knows what a fired-up, untrained, possibly psychotic random lynch mob can do, to *innocent people*?
The interesting thing is, it's not considered perjury if the question **itself** is not relevant to the main thrust of the case.
The question of Clinton having sex with Monica, occurred in the Paula Jones case. This question was itself ruled not relevant to the case by the judge. Therefore Clinton's lie in answering that questions was not perjury.
To: United Nations General Assembly
We, the undersigned, urge you, the members and officers of the United Nations General Assembly, to pass a resolution against and to use all of your diplomatic and political powers to prevent an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran by the United States of America and/or her allies.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/NWinIran/petition.ht ml
Slashdot Mirror
And the overall purpose of laws is to tell citizens what to do, for the benefit of those in power. And those in power are both formal officials and those in the same social / economic class. So, one thing the rulers of *any* society absolutely do not want, is their laws to be vetted and determined by those who are *not* in their class, such as the other 98% of that population.
So, an inefficient law-creation process with no adequate testing period or prior review by those who'd be subject to the laws, and as much of a lack of involvement with the subjects as possible, is kind of how the rulers of any nation like it. And, although we do live in a democracy, our leaders do have that tendency as well.
Case in point: NAFTA. That bill was practically hidden from the citizens by both the direct rulers in D.C. *and* the media, before it was passed. This was because they all knew it was to *their* benefit as rulers, and straight talk about it's intentions and it's likely effects on the working class would keep it from being passed. This was *both* Democrats and Republicans, working together for their social / economic class. Joining hands across the aisle, in the true spirit of bipartisanship: shafting the US working class.
As for how the media is involved in this, it doesn't require conspiracy at all; the media is run by wealthy people, and wealthy people, like all people, will not spread information that is not in their perceived best interest. No conspiracy required, just interests in common.
This sort of law review is still a great idea. But it or something like it will probably have to be done by private citizens. It could be done in just such a way as this article describes, perhaps by a "Consumer Reports" type of situation. And perhaps with sufficient economic modeling algorithms, it could end up being a useful tool for the ruling class at well - allowing some laws which actually do benefit citizens to at least be less watered down by the time they emerge from D.C.
OK re: civil servants, as long as they actually don't benefit from their positions, by laws that are enforced. For example, if anyone who serves on a board like the FCC can't get hired by or take money from media corporations for at least, say, 5 years, and must be fully divested in order to serve. Otherwise, bug included, at least those who are voted in can be voted out - and the monopolistic media aided by the unelected FCC apparatchik's here is to the great benefit of those politicians who lie.
*Trying* to do something is always more likely to succeed than doing nothing, wouldn't you agree? Doing nothing has a zero chance of changing anything. Even if the odds are long, trying to do something does succeed - because eventually things do work right. For example, here it looks like Dodd was able to win the battle. Now I'm aware that this is a battle in a long war - but it's a battle that was won. People can stand up and do the right thing against long odds and **win**. In fact it's the only way positive change happens this world. I'm for making things better for everyone; and there's selfishness in that, as that means things are better for me. I'm sure you want a better world for yourself and others too. Take heart - sometimes good guys actually do win. And it's worth fighting just for those times, besides being able to feel like, whatever happend, you've done all you can to make a better world.
So, let's just give and do whatever corporations want, then? Freedom, who cares? The effort is just too inconvenient?
To quote Jello Biafra, "Give me convenience or give me death?"
I totally disagree with this outlook; I view it as self-defeating fatalism. US courts still have the power to affect corporations, and they have this power (and we keep our freedoms) to the extent that we stand up for our rights.
It's happened already. In Philipsburg NJ, a couple of civic-minded @$$holes broke into a house to beat up a Megan's law listed sex offender - but the guy they beat up had nothing to do with any sex offense ever.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2D6153AF933A15751C0A963958260
This was an early case, and the county government screwed up - they took the extra step of delivering flyers to the neighborhood, freaking everyone out and thus whipping up a lynch mob. Nevertheless, the same principle stands. Yes, people have a right to know, but they don't have a right to pre-emptively use violence. Practical as well as moral reasons.
There's a reason why we give law enforcement to the police. They can make mistakes like anybody else - but who the hell knows what a fired-up, untrained, possibly psychotic random lynch mob can do, to *innocent people*?
The interesting thing is, it's not considered perjury if the question **itself** is not relevant to the main thrust of the case.
The question of Clinton having sex with Monica, occurred in the Paula Jones case. This question was itself ruled not relevant to the case by the judge. Therefore Clinton's lie in answering that questions was not perjury.
Yah, my oops. Thanks for the correction. Apollo 11 then.
Just for long enough to send back pix of the remains of Apollo 1, so all these moon-landing deniers can STFU.
To: United Nations General Assembly We, the undersigned, urge you, the members and officers of the United Nations General Assembly, to pass a resolution against and to use all of your diplomatic and political powers to prevent an attack on the sovereign nation of Iran by the United States of America and/or her allies. Sincerely, The Undersigned http://www.petitiononline.com/NWinIran/petition.ht ml