There should be deep distrust of government, by everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The main purpose of the Founder’s ‘checks and balances’ paradigm was to prevent the concentration of power in government, because it wasn’t to be trusted.
America was sleepwalking through the past fifty years as a slow-moving corporate coup took…
There should be deep distrust of government, by everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The main purpose of the Founder’s ‘checks and balances’ paradigm was to prevent the concentration of power in government, because it wasn’t to be trusted.
America was sleepwalking through the past fifty years as a slow-moving corporate coup took place, with monied interests buying both political parties, and all of the checks and balances. We… are… owned.
We need our revolution, the one Jefferson referenced that is necessary when government ceases responding to the interests of the people. For all the hysteria about 1/6, some justified, some not, the fact remains that frustration over governing dysfunction leads, inexorably to rebellion. Ask those who threw the tea into Boston Harbor.
The men who threw the tea overboard had the right target, the East India Company, not King George. The failure of the people on 1/6 was targeting a government building owned by monied interests, instead of the corporate headquarters of Amazon, Raytheon, Boeing, ADM, etc. Wrong target, same frustration.
Until laser focus comes to ‘why Trump’ instead of’GOP sucks’, we’ll continue to circle the drain.
Tom, the "being owned" points right to oligarchs, billionaires, the KOCH and ALEK factions, the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, and others all pulling strings so their puppets will dance.
But that is not all that is going on. We have (at least at present) an EPA that makes a valiant effort to regulate environmental degradation. We have Social Security and Medicare and, at least in some states (I live in Minnesota), learned, inquisitive, compassionate, and excellent Senators whose vision is trained in the direction of greater freedom and ethical responsibility.
So I ask you: Will you only trust government if it achieves 100% of what you want? I do not think of trusting government at all. I expect people to act in ways that do damage to themselves and others. It's a fact of human life.
But I also see that I live in a country where in Florida the people who care about women's health care could work hard and get a measure on the ballot to ensure abortion when needed. That's just one example of what people do to re-balance the odds and right the wrong. The Florida Supreme Court might disallow the proposed law. . . but maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. Still, they tried.
Sometimes I think the posture of "both sides are corrupt" results from wanting to be pissed off and veiling it with a mask of self-righteousness. Am I wrong? Is it really reasonable to see only what you don't like and not see what is encouraging and hopeful?
Again, with the ‘self-righteous’ crap. Both sides are corrupt… because… they… are.
The system is corrupt. One pays to play in it.
I see many things in the policy and politics realm, including the Florida ballot initiative. The good that people are attempting to accomplish, and sometimes even succeeding at, are dwarfed by the mendacious duplicity of a corrupt system of governance and politics, and corporate media propaganda that is killing us.
To answer your first question, no, I would not trust a government doing 100% of what I want. That would be its own belief system, and foolish. I’d vote for it, but trust it? Nope.
What I see is a materially comfortable liberal class of Americans largely paying lip service to the poor, to the Palestinians, to the economically anxious, and totally refusing to actually embrace a class-based anti-capitalist politics that addresses those issues, preferring instead to couch their lip service in status quo incrementalist legislative crumbs that do little but intensify populist frustration and rage, and inevitably increase the probability of the authoritarian rule they claim to fear.
I'm sorry that you have to live with so much anger. I would love it if governments world-wide could all be changed so that all people had enough. My response is to tithe my time, money, and abilities toward that end and to vote for those who seem like they will intend what is best for all people. Then I give 1) thanks for all the people whose compassion leads them to try doing what's good and 2) somehow tolerate my short-comings and those of others. It'll never be a perfect world.
Here we go again with the perfect is the enemy of the good meme. It’ll never be a perfect world… Really?…. Wow!…. Who knew?
You say you intend to vote for a candidate intending what is best for all people. Happy to see you will be voting for a third-party candidate this cycle, as neither duopoly candidate has that intention, despite what they might say.
I live with so much anger because there is so much to be angry about; just channeling the bumper sticker messaging of if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. I pay attention more than most, certainly more than either the Trump cult or the VoteBlueNoMatterWho cult in this particular comments forum.
Don’t be concerned, or sorry, about the anger. The first quarter century of my life was spent under authoritarian rule (dysfunctional abusive father/military), but the positive things coming out of the madness were finely honed skills of both observation and compartmentalization, and a love of reading. Compared to most of the world, I live a comfortable, happy life.
But I will call out hypocritical, abusive, duplicitous, mendacious behavior that puts the interests of monied interests and donors above working people and the poor wherever I see it, and that includes when those traits come from tribal darlings here like Joe Biden and Tony Blinken. The real question is, why aren’t more here angry with them?
If one can’t be critical of genocidal complicity, what kind of moral compass does one possess?
Yes-but King George legitimized the East India Company...and remember according to SCOTUS (a branch of government) corporations are people and "United Citizens" in America can make all the donations they want to buy politicians in the land of the free. Government has the power to sanction/regulate corporations, but we've gone down a dark hole as wealthy people play their games to maintain power and control.
There should be deep distrust of government, by everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The main purpose of the Founder’s ‘checks and balances’ paradigm was to prevent the concentration of power in government, because it wasn’t to be trusted.
America was sleepwalking through the past fifty years as a slow-moving corporate coup took place, with monied interests buying both political parties, and all of the checks and balances. We… are… owned.
We need our revolution, the one Jefferson referenced that is necessary when government ceases responding to the interests of the people. For all the hysteria about 1/6, some justified, some not, the fact remains that frustration over governing dysfunction leads, inexorably to rebellion. Ask those who threw the tea into Boston Harbor.
The men who threw the tea overboard had the right target, the East India Company, not King George. The failure of the people on 1/6 was targeting a government building owned by monied interests, instead of the corporate headquarters of Amazon, Raytheon, Boeing, ADM, etc. Wrong target, same frustration.
Until laser focus comes to ‘why Trump’ instead of’GOP sucks’, we’ll continue to circle the drain.
Tom, the "being owned" points right to oligarchs, billionaires, the KOCH and ALEK factions, the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, and others all pulling strings so their puppets will dance.
But that is not all that is going on. We have (at least at present) an EPA that makes a valiant effort to regulate environmental degradation. We have Social Security and Medicare and, at least in some states (I live in Minnesota), learned, inquisitive, compassionate, and excellent Senators whose vision is trained in the direction of greater freedom and ethical responsibility.
So I ask you: Will you only trust government if it achieves 100% of what you want? I do not think of trusting government at all. I expect people to act in ways that do damage to themselves and others. It's a fact of human life.
But I also see that I live in a country where in Florida the people who care about women's health care could work hard and get a measure on the ballot to ensure abortion when needed. That's just one example of what people do to re-balance the odds and right the wrong. The Florida Supreme Court might disallow the proposed law. . . but maybe not. Nothing is guaranteed. Still, they tried.
Sometimes I think the posture of "both sides are corrupt" results from wanting to be pissed off and veiling it with a mask of self-righteousness. Am I wrong? Is it really reasonable to see only what you don't like and not see what is encouraging and hopeful?
He is looking for the perfect, not the good
Again, with the ‘self-righteous’ crap. Both sides are corrupt… because… they… are.
The system is corrupt. One pays to play in it.
I see many things in the policy and politics realm, including the Florida ballot initiative. The good that people are attempting to accomplish, and sometimes even succeeding at, are dwarfed by the mendacious duplicity of a corrupt system of governance and politics, and corporate media propaganda that is killing us.
To answer your first question, no, I would not trust a government doing 100% of what I want. That would be its own belief system, and foolish. I’d vote for it, but trust it? Nope.
What I see is a materially comfortable liberal class of Americans largely paying lip service to the poor, to the Palestinians, to the economically anxious, and totally refusing to actually embrace a class-based anti-capitalist politics that addresses those issues, preferring instead to couch their lip service in status quo incrementalist legislative crumbs that do little but intensify populist frustration and rage, and inevitably increase the probability of the authoritarian rule they claim to fear.
I'm sorry that you have to live with so much anger. I would love it if governments world-wide could all be changed so that all people had enough. My response is to tithe my time, money, and abilities toward that end and to vote for those who seem like they will intend what is best for all people. Then I give 1) thanks for all the people whose compassion leads them to try doing what's good and 2) somehow tolerate my short-comings and those of others. It'll never be a perfect world.
Here we go again with the perfect is the enemy of the good meme. It’ll never be a perfect world… Really?…. Wow!…. Who knew?
You say you intend to vote for a candidate intending what is best for all people. Happy to see you will be voting for a third-party candidate this cycle, as neither duopoly candidate has that intention, despite what they might say.
I live with so much anger because there is so much to be angry about; just channeling the bumper sticker messaging of if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention. I pay attention more than most, certainly more than either the Trump cult or the VoteBlueNoMatterWho cult in this particular comments forum.
Don’t be concerned, or sorry, about the anger. The first quarter century of my life was spent under authoritarian rule (dysfunctional abusive father/military), but the positive things coming out of the madness were finely honed skills of both observation and compartmentalization, and a love of reading. Compared to most of the world, I live a comfortable, happy life.
But I will call out hypocritical, abusive, duplicitous, mendacious behavior that puts the interests of monied interests and donors above working people and the poor wherever I see it, and that includes when those traits come from tribal darlings here like Joe Biden and Tony Blinken. The real question is, why aren’t more here angry with them?
If one can’t be critical of genocidal complicity, what kind of moral compass does one possess?
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/tony-blinken-is-a-cold-blooded-sociopath
Yes-but King George legitimized the East India Company...and remember according to SCOTUS (a branch of government) corporations are people and "United Citizens" in America can make all the donations they want to buy politicians in the land of the free. Government has the power to sanction/regulate corporations, but we've gone down a dark hole as wealthy people play their games to maintain power and control.
Not just King George; every member of Parliament owned East India stock.
Only way, imo, to kill the concepts of corporate personhood and money as speech is HJR-54. Info here: MoveToAmend.org