Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/dem … _20100124/

Corporate forces, long before the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, carried out a coup d’état in slow motion. The coup is over. We lost. The ruling is one more judicial effort to streamline mechanisms for corporate control. It exposes the myth of a functioning democracy and the triumph of corporate power. But it does not significantly alter the political landscape. The corporate state is firmly cemented in place.

The fiction of democracy remains useful, not only for corporations, but for our bankrupt liberal class. If the fiction is seriously challenged, liberals will be forced to consider actual resistance, which will be neither pleasant nor easy. As long as a democratic facade exists, liberals can engage in an empty moral posturing that requires little sacrifice or commitment. They can be the self-appointed scolds of the Democratic Party, acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest.

Much of the outrage expressed about the court’s ruling is the outrage of those who prefer this choreographed charade. As long as the charade is played, they do not have to consider how to combat what the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls our system of “inverted totalitarianism.”

Inverted totalitarianism represents “the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry,” Wolin writes in “Democracy Incorporated.” Inverted totalitarianism differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader, and finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, boast of replacing decaying structures with a new, revolutionary structure. They purport to honor electoral politics, freedom and the Constitution. But they so corrupt and manipulate the levers of power as to make democracy impossible.

Inverted totalitarianism is not conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy. It is furthered by “power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions,” Wolin writes. But it is as dangerous as classical forms of totalitarianism. In a system of inverted totalitarianism, as this court ruling illustrates, it is not necessary to rewrite the Constitution, as fascist and communist regimes do. It is enough to exploit legitimate power by means of judicial and legislative interpretation. This exploitation ensures that huge corporate campaign contributions are protected speech under the First Amendment. It ensures that heavily financed and organized lobbying by large corporations is interpreted as an application of the people’s right to petition the government. The court again ratified the concept that corporations are persons, except in those cases where the “persons” agree to a “settlement.” Those within corporations who commit crimes can avoid going to prison by paying large sums of money to the government while, according to this twisted judicial reasoning, not “admitting any wrongdoing.” There is a word for this. It is called corruption.

Corporations have 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals that dole out corporate money to shape and write legislation. They use their political action committees to solicit employees and shareholders for donations to fund pliable candidates. The financial sector, for example, spent more than $5 billion on political campaigns, influence peddling and lobbying during the past decade, which resulted in sweeping deregulation, the gouging of consumers, our global financial meltdown and the subsequent looting of the U.S. Treasury. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent $26 million last year and drug companies such as Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly kicked in tens of millions more to buy off the two parties. These corporations have made sure our so-called health reform bill will force us to buy their predatory and defective products. The oil and gas industry, the coal industry, defense contractors and telecommunications companies have thwarted the drive for sustainable energy and orchestrated the steady erosion of civil liberties. Politicians do corporate bidding and stage hollow acts of political theater to keep the fiction of the democratic state alive.

There is no national institution left that can accurately be described as democratic. Citizens, rather than participate in power, are allowed to have virtual opinions to preordained questions, a kind of participatory fascism as meaningless as voting on “American Idol.” Mass emotions are directed toward the raging culture wars. This allows us to take emotional stands on issues that are inconsequential to the power elite.

Our transformation into an empire, as happened in ancient Athens and Rome, has seen the tyranny we practice abroad become the tyranny we practice at home. We, like all empires, have been eviscerated by our own expansionism. We utilize weapons of horrific destructive power, subsidize their development with billions in taxpayer dollars, and are the world’s largest arms dealer. And the Constitution, as Wolin notes, is “conscripted to serve as power’s apprentice rather than its conscience.”


You can follow the second page from the link if you prefer.

Basically, Chris Hedges sums up the final chapter we've entered of any illusion of power we may have thought we had as individuals in this country.

Any thoughts?
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
cant beat em, join em
Tu Stultus Es
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
Pretty much...  That's what I've done anyway...
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

This tells a different story. Wonder why the discrepancy in numbers?

2009: $3.18B Spent by 13,415 lobbyists
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85
Turq, you and the author need to get together and read this passage again:

article wrote:

The fiction of democracy remains useful, not only for corporations, but for our bankrupt liberal class. If the fiction is seriously challenged, liberals will be forced to consider actual resistance, which will be neither pleasant nor easy. As long as a democratic facade exists, liberals can engage in an empty moral posturing that requires little sacrifice or commitment. They can be the self-appointed scolds of the Democratic Party, acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest.
The notion that corporations run America comes from people who don't like what they see, don't know how to do anything about it, don't want to do anything about it, and above all don't want to think of themselves as part of the problem. They want a scapegoat, and the idea of a faceless corporation that doesn't care what they think, not out of "selfish greed" but because they truly don't have a reason to give a fuck, plays off quite nicely. You say "corporate America" and you don't need to justify it with a specific name or brand, even if you're feeling uppity you can name the fraction that have actually been caught doing something illegal. Most people probably couldn't name corrupt politicians and corporations that they actually have a valid reason to believe they are corrupt. Not even something that would hold up in court, just a logical reason to believe that they are doing something immoral. These are supposedly the people responsible for the death of democracy in America yet I have no doubt even the "activists" couldn't come up with a couple handful without the help of Google. It works out for everyone because activists can feel like they're sticking it to the man, the man doesn't give a flying fuck because he's on his yacht, and for all practical purposes the whole shebang doesn't even register on the political richter scale.

The political power the people hold hasn't gone anywhere. For political purposes our democratic rights haven't been significantly infringed upon at all. Frankly we've made leaps and bounds as far as making votes democratically fair, making sure ethnicity plays as little legal role in the system as we possibly can. The voting populace holds every bit of the power it did in 1787, if not significantly more considering the advances in communication. The vote is still the vote. There is plenty of readily-available information that indicates who is taking money from who and it doesn't take too much brain power to connect the dots after that. People are perfectly capable of continually voting out the representatives that they feel have not adequately represented their interests. The only difference is these days nobody cares. I don't mean nobody cares in the extremely minor sense that they don't get to the voting booth or they don't educate themselves on the issues. They don't care enough to engage their god given ability to put a goddamn coherent thought together about anything that's worth a damn.

Really, the thing that keeps me up at night isn't that politicians are corrupt, or that corporations bend the laws with money to help their product, or how uninformed the typical voter is. It's how absurdly small minded the people are that think they are making a difference. It's people that write something like this, and give themselves a nice pat on the back. It didn't do anything, it's a very superficial rant. It doesn't call anyone out specifically, it doesn't even allude to what we should do about the problem. It just uses hyped up rhetoric like this absolute shit:

article wrote:

Liberals, socialists, trade unionists, independent journalists and intellectuals, many of whom were once important voices in our society, have been silenced or targeted for elimination within corporate-controlled academia, the media and government. Wolin, who taught at Berkeley and later at Princeton, is arguably the country’s foremost political philosopher. And yet his book was virtually ignored. This is also why Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, along with intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, are not given a part in our national discourse.

article wrote:

The uniformity of opinion is reinforced by the skillfully orchestrated mass emotions of nationalism and patriotism, which paints all dissidents as “soft” or “unpatriotic.”

article wrote:

The Supreme Court decision is part of our transformation by the corporate state from citizens to prisoners.
to make the reader enjoy reading it. It invites the reader to casually agree, to feel like part of the solution not part of the problem, to be "acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest."

The problem is the people who think they are the solution to the problem don't even know what the problem is. They aren't even thinking on the same level as the problem. I don't pretend to think I am part of the solution either - this post isn't some massive chunk of irony. But I do think that because I have no illusions about the fact that I am most certainly part of the problem, that has to be the first step. I am not one ounce better than the ignorant fuck that doesn't know the difference between Australia and Austria or the ignorant fuck that thinks voting means being a vital cog in the democratic machine. I am just saying that my god, if people are really content to sit around the coffee shop and go on about the pitfalls of a two-party system, that is the problem with the nation.

We have no Paine. We have no Madison. We have no Franklin. We have people that are more inclined to look at the whole idea of democracy in an utterly superficial manner instead of critically valuing the ideals behind it. Individualism is not important - people form groups at every opportunity, groups that filter out the original points and polarize the common ones . Parents don't teach their children values - they feed them the party line of their choice and let them be socialized by the apathetic education system and media catered to the lowest common denominator. Above all there is no perspective - people are encouraged to live day by day, valuing the moment they have instead of being told to make the next moment better than the last. The issue is not that American democracy is a sham - the fact is American democracy is alive and well. The issue is that Americans (in good company with the rest of the Western world) are a sham.

A democracy is only as good as the people that participate in it - the people I see when I look around me are a fucking joke. Not because they aren't intelligent in the usual sense of the world, not because they are actively aiding and abetting the idea of America that we have all been rightfully taught to cherish, but because there is so little going on up there. Train of thought is seemingly limited to what people see in front of them. Where can that train possibly lead except a slightly worse version of the present?

One of my all time favorite quotes that I used as a sig for a while is "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." by William Hazlitt. When I look around I see a lot more seeing things as they are than seeing things as they ought to be. The article is a glaring example. It's miles ahead of the kind of stuff that is usually talked about, but it's still just a description of how things are. There is no creative problem solving, not even the sense of ambition to do something about it.

This is not the humanity I want anything to do with. The only group of people I want to be a part of is one that sees the world as it is - a series of problem that we can work together to fix. That doesn't mean getting mad about the problems. That doesn't mean stringing up a politician or a businessman. It should be about constructively working to fix the problems for posterity - at the very least giving birth to a mindset of even considering trying to fix a problem instead of becoming mired down in partisan bullshit, a mindset that could become prevalent enough to set up paradigm shift in the future. People that are people, not numbers on a poll result or by-lines in an op-ed piece. Where picking leaders is more similar to a poker tournament than a West Side Story style gang fight. Where people get pissed about the issues instead of pissed about the leaders.

If the Republic is going to function as it is designed to, the constituents have to live up to the designers. The pitiful part is we don't think we're up to the task. Maybe we aren't. If so we have been doomed from the get go, and I figure not a whole lot that comes after that fact matters very much. If we are though, if we have a chance at being at least as good as people that have missed out on the last 200 years of humanity, we need to grow the fuck up and start acting like it.

it feels good to get that out and at the same time I feel like shit. the reasoning against fuck it of the highest order is so intuitive yet so unreasonable
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The notion that corporations run America comes from people who don't like what they see, don't know how to do anything about it, don't want to do anything about it, and above all don't want to think of themselves as part of the problem. They want a scapegoat, and the idea of a faceless corporation that doesn't care what they think, not out of "selfish greed" but because they truly don't have a reason to give a fuck, plays off quite nicely. You say "corporate America" and you don't need to justify it with a specific name or brand, even if you're feeling uppity you can name the fraction that have actually been caught doing something illegal. Most people probably couldn't name corrupt politicians and corporations that they actually have a valid reason to believe they are corrupt. Not even something that would hold up in court, just a logical reason to believe that they are doing something immoral. These are supposedly the people responsible for the death of democracy in America yet I have no doubt even the "activists" couldn't come up with a couple handful without the help of Google. It works out for everyone because activists can feel like they're sticking it to the man, the man doesn't give a flying fuck because he's on his yacht, and for all practical purposes the whole shebang doesn't even register on the political richter scale.

The political power the people hold hasn't gone anywhere. For political purposes our democratic rights haven't been significantly infringed upon at all. Frankly we've made leaps and bounds as far as making votes democratically fair, making sure ethnicity plays as little legal role in the system as we possibly can. The voting populace holds every bit of the power it did in 1787, if not significantly more considering the advances in communication. The vote is still the vote. There is plenty of readily-available information that indicates who is taking money from who and it doesn't take too much brain power to connect the dots after that. People are perfectly capable of continually voting out the representatives that they feel have not adequately represented their interests. The only difference is these days nobody cares. I don't mean nobody cares in the extremely minor sense that they don't get to the voting booth or they don't educate themselves on the issues. They don't care enough to engage their god given ability to put a goddamn coherent thought together about anything that's worth a damn.
But knowing all this...  wouldn't you still agree with the general idea?  You've already said that most people don't care enough to put much thought into it.  If that's the case, isn't it better that they don't vote?  I would rather that they not participate at all rather than vote without knowing what they are voting for.

For the most part, I agree with you that the political power we hold hasn't gone anywhere, because we didn't have much to begin with.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Really, the thing that keeps me up at night isn't that politicians are corrupt, or that corporations bend the laws with money to help their product, or how uninformed the typical voter is. It's how absurdly small minded the people are that think they are making a difference. It's people that write something like this, and give themselves a nice pat on the back. It didn't do anything, it's a very superficial rant. It doesn't call anyone out specifically, it doesn't even allude to what we should do about the problem. It just uses hyped up rhetoric like this absolute shit:

article wrote:

Liberals, socialists, trade unionists, independent journalists and intellectuals, many of whom were once important voices in our society, have been silenced or targeted for elimination within corporate-controlled academia, the media and government. Wolin, who taught at Berkeley and later at Princeton, is arguably the country’s foremost political philosopher. And yet his book was virtually ignored. This is also why Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, along with intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, are not given a part in our national discourse.

article wrote:

The uniformity of opinion is reinforced by the skillfully orchestrated mass emotions of nationalism and patriotism, which paints all dissidents as “soft” or “unpatriotic.”

article wrote:

The Supreme Court decision is part of our transformation by the corporate state from citizens to prisoners.
to make the reader enjoy reading it. It invites the reader to casually agree, to feel like part of the solution not part of the problem, to be "acting as if they are part of the debate and feel vindicated by their cries of protest."

The problem is the people who think they are the solution to the problem don't even know what the problem is. They aren't even thinking on the same level as the problem. I don't pretend to think I am part of the solution either - this post isn't some massive chunk of irony. But I do think that because I have no illusions about the fact that I am most certainly part of the problem, that has to be the first step. I am not one ounce better than the ignorant fuck that doesn't know the difference between Australia and Austria or the ignorant fuck that thinks voting means being a vital cog in the democratic machine. I am just saying that my god, if people are really content to sit around the coffee shop and go on about the pitfalls of a two-party system, that is the problem with the nation.
I agree in many ways....   But we're still at square one.  You admit that you aren't part of the solution, and I'm not either.  I'd rather watch it decay than help it, because I know that, most of the time, "no good deed goes unpunished."  The majority of people we claim to respect because of the changes they made either are initially shunned by society or die before they can really enjoy the progress they've made.

So fuck it.  Bravo nailed exactly what my point was earlier.  If you can't beat them, join them.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We have no Paine. We have no Madison. We have no Franklin. We have people that are more inclined to look at the whole idea of democracy in an utterly superficial manner instead of critically valuing the ideals behind it. Individualism is not important - people form groups at every opportunity, groups that filter out the original points and polarize the common ones . Parents don't teach their children values - they feed them the party line of their choice and let them be socialized by the apathetic education system and media catered to the lowest common denominator. Above all there is no perspective - people are encouraged to live day by day, valuing the moment they have instead of being told to make the next moment better than the last. The issue is not that American democracy is a sham - the fact is American democracy is alive and well. The issue is that Americans (in good company with the rest of the Western world) are a sham.
Well, thankfully, globalization will fix that on its own terms.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A democracy is only as good as the people that participate in it - the people I see when I look around me are a fucking joke. Not because they aren't intelligent in the usual sense of the world, not because they are actively aiding and abetting the idea of America that we have all been rightfully taught to cherish, but because there is so little going on up there. Train of thought is seemingly limited to what people see in front of them. Where can that train possibly lead except a slightly worse version of the present?
Instant gratification is the name of the game.  The problem in my mind isn't really what they are doing or even what lobbyists do.  The problem is that people bother making a difference in the first place.  The happiest people are those that can live superficially and engage in the mundane things of life without worrying about the big picture.  I envy those people, and one of the few changes I can make that I actually have the power to do is to become one of them.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

One of my all time favorite quotes that I used as a sig for a while is "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." by William Hazlitt. When I look around I see a lot more seeing things as they are than seeing things as they ought to be. The article is a glaring example. It's miles ahead of the kind of stuff that is usually talked about, but it's still just a description of how things are. There is no creative problem solving, not even the sense of ambition to do something about it.

This is not the humanity I want anything to do with. The only group of people I want to be a part of is one that sees the world as it is - a series of problem that we can work together to fix. That doesn't mean getting mad about the problems. That doesn't mean stringing up a politician or a businessman. It should be about constructively working to fix the problems for posterity - at the very least giving birth to a mindset of even considering trying to fix a problem instead of becoming mired down in partisan bullshit, a mindset that could become prevalent enough to set up paradigm shift in the future. People that are people, not numbers on a poll result or by-lines in an op-ed piece. Where picking leaders is more similar to a poker tournament than a West Side Story style gang fight. Where people get pissed about the issues instead of pissed about the leaders.
But why bother?  To me, it's just a matter of realizing how things are, moving on, and enjoying the immediate for the brief time we exist.  The people with "big ideas" can play their games, but most of them will fail or live long enough to see the things they created become tools of oppression.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the Republic is going to function as it is designed to, the constituents have to live up to the designers. The pitiful part is we don't think we're up to the task. Maybe we aren't. If so we have been doomed from the get go, and I figure not a whole lot that comes after that fact matters very much. If we are though, if we have a chance at being at least as good as people that have missed out on the last 200 years of humanity, we need to grow the fuck up and start acting like it.

it feels good to get that out and at the same time I feel like shit. the reasoning against fuck it of the highest order is so intuitive yet so unreasonable
Fuck it really does feel a lot better with a rum and coke.  This all reminds me of something Bertolt Brecht once wrote...

"You saw sagacious Solomon
You know what came of him,
To him complexities seemed plain.
He cursed the hour that gave birth to him
And saw that everything was vain.
How great and wise was Solomon.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's wisdom that had brought him to this state.
How fortunate the man with none.

You saw courageous Caesar next
You know what he became.
They deified him in his life
Then had him murdered just the same.
And as they raised the fatal knife
How loud he cried: you too my son!
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's courage that had brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.

You heard of honest Socrates
The man who never lied:
They weren't so grateful as you'd think
Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried
And handed him the poisoned drink.
How honest was the people's noble son.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's honesty that brought him to that state.
How fortunate the man with none.

Here you can see respectable folk
Keeping to God's own laws.
So far he hasn't taken heed.
You who sit safe and warm indoors
Help to relieve our bitter need.
How virtuously we had begun.
The world however did not wait
But soon observed what followed on.
It's fear of god that brought us to that state.
How fortunate the man with none."
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

This tells a different story. Wonder why the discrepancy in numbers?

2009: $3.18B Spent by 13,415 lobbyists
How much did you donate to Washington last year?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
The use of open-ended words like greed, democracy, freedom, or even what a corporation is varies among those who use them. Sure, they have a dictionary definition that one could use but the vast majority of people who throw these and other words around on a daily basis so flippantly and carelessly have lost sight of the true meaning, or never understood what they meant in the first place. Because of this, they are politically useful tools used to 'rally the troops' around an idea.

A word like greed has different meanings to different people and all but a very few do not use the word in derision. It seems to be a favorite pass-time among liberals in this country to blame corporate 'greed' for just about every ill. "The corporations are greedy so they will try to fuck over the populace." seems to be a pretty popular sentiment among those who want an enemy to fight or a faceless bogeyman to scare people with. But what is greed? Most people use the word incorrectly. What they are describing is just rational self interest. It is in the best interest of Corporation X to sell it's products. Why? Well, profit is the primary motivator but the secondary benefit is that they are providing something useful that people want to buy. Whether they are selling a dishwasher, a can of Coke or building a home, they are doing and selling things that people want to make their lives easier. If you remove that primary motivator of profit, why would anyone produce anything? Why would anyone put forth the effort of designing and building new products if they didn't get anything out of it?

It's become the national obsession to blame the banks on Wall St for causing the current recession and the politicians have done a very good job casting them for the part of bogeyman in the national drama. They blame the greed on Wall St for causing the recession and putting people out of work and forcing people to foreclose on their homes. The big bad banker bogeyman gave out big bonuses this year while people were living on unemployment etc. Greed is blamed. But what is a recession? It's fear. Nothing more. People get scared and they decide to hold onto their money. That's all a recession is, the definition contained in that one little sentence. It's precisely the lack of 'greed' on the part of the people that forces an economy to collapse. If people aren't spending their money, they aren't buying goods. If they aren't buying goods then people are laid off at the companies that produce those goods. If people are getting laid off they get even more scared and hold on even tighter to their money. It's a vicious cycle that doesn't alleviate itself until the fear starts to subside. People start coming out of their shells and spend a bit here, a bit there, and eventually it ramps itself back up to normal.

Sure, there are always excesses. People trying to take just a bit more to get ahead and that would rightly be termed greed. But as long as they aren't stealing or committing fraud there is nothing essentially wrong with it. They aren't really taking from anyone else, the world and it's wealth is not a zero sum equation. People point out CEO pay as if it is the biggest problem facing our country. Those evil CEOs should be paying their workers more etc. Why? Everything in the world is subject to supply and demand, whether it's the price of a commodity or the wages that a worker receives, they all obey that S&D curve made famous in every macroeconomics textbook. There are few people qualified to lead a large corporation but a large demand for quality so they get paid for it. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh, but "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer" right? I've heard that more times than I can possibly count. Why is that? There's nothing chaining anyone to a specific social class in this country. If you're born poor there's absolutely nothing holding you back from rising to the very heights of prosperity. You're given a free education, if you're truly poor you get your meals taken care of for you, health care for when you are sick and housing provided by the state. All of your basic needs are taken care of for you so that you have a shot in life. Why then are the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer? It has everything to do with motivation. As FM so eloquently put it in the post above, people just don't give a shit. They walk through life as zombies filled with a basic level of intelligence and never seek to expand their knowledge or learn anything new. They'll go to public school and talk in class and throw M&Ms at each other when the teacher isn't looking and make a mockery of education as a whole. They'll graduate (maybe) and stumble through life ignorant going from job to job with the only stability in their life being their favorite TV shows. They'll sit there and point the finger at everyone but themself for their problems. It's the corporations that force them to buy the products they sell and run up massive credit card debt and buy a house they can't afford on credit. The corporations are the bad men in this equation.

This has gotten far too long so it's high time to reach the conclusion. I've noticed during my short time on Earth that the biggest complainers about corporate greed are people who have been shut out by corporations or who feel that they are underpaid for their services. These are the people that were told they were a unique snowflake all their life and that they were special and could do whatever they wanted. They should find something they really loved in life and pursue it. So, they went to college and chose a degree in English or journalism or fashion or sociology or psychology or art. There is nothing inherently wrong with these choices, they are all useful degrees. The problem is that so many have chosen this path in life, whether it's guys who chose their major based on how large the female population within it was or because they really liked the works of Hemingway and wanted to write like him or they worked on their school newspaper in high school and loved it, that there is and has been a very large glut in these fields for a very long time. They graduate college and get pissed off because they can't find a job for more than $30k and find out the world isn't all roses and peaches. The main problem they have is that they don't really understand how the world works. They had an idealistic view while in school, maybe they were fed a bit of Marx along the way, who knows. Point is that they are angry because they are on the outside looking in at prosperity and they can't really understand why. They feel they have useful talents and that the world is being unfair to them. They then turn to the politicians who say they will level the playing field, spread the wealth around, punish corporations and evil bankers.

Anyway, to sum everything up. Corporations exist because of us, and they exist to serve us. Without our own inherent rational self interest (or greed) they wouldn't have anyone to sell their products to. They are a reflection of us, because they are us. Looking at a corporation is like looking into a mirror.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Anyway, to sum everything up. Corporations exist because of us, and they exist to serve us. Without our own inherent rational self interest (or greed) they wouldn't have anyone to sell their products to. They are a reflection of us, because they are us. Looking at a corporation is like looking into a mirror.
I agree.  Hence, "if you can't beat them, join them."

I work for a corporation, so it would be hypocritical for me to attempt to protest them anyway.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

This tells a different story. Wonder why the discrepancy in numbers?

2009: $3.18B Spent by 13,415 lobbyists
How much did you donate to Washington last year?
Via taxes?

What are you asking?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/

This tells a different story. Wonder why the discrepancy in numbers?

2009: $3.18B Spent by 13,415 lobbyists
How much did you donate to Washington last year?
Via taxes?

What are you asking?
How much do you give in political donations?  You don't have to give an exact amount...  just a rough estimate.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I agree with you that the political power we hold hasn't gone anywhere, because we didn't have much to begin with.
How? Do you want to be king or something?

Turquoise wrote:

But knowing all this...  wouldn't you still agree with the general idea?  You've already said that most people don't care enough to put much thought into it.  If that's the case, isn't it better that they don't vote?  I would rather that they not participate at all rather than vote without knowing what they are voting for.
It is profoundly irrelevant. Even the people who do put "thought" in it aren't thinking in anywhere near the correct terms. It shouldn't be about a choice between the candidate with an (R) after their name and the candidate with a (D) after their name. The way the political process has evolved in the last ~225 years has rendered it void of any meaning. It's like asking whether or not someone with AIDS should spit on someone on fire. No, they shouldn't, but that is really missing the point.

Turquoise wrote:

Well, thankfully, globalization will fix that on its own terms.
We are still largely ahead of the curve. I don't have much reason to believe the rest of the world will cope with these problems any better than we are when they get to them.

Turquoise wrote:

...
...
... ~Bertolt Brecht
Fuck. That.

I'd rather die with purpose than live in blissful ignorance. Happiness is seriously overrated.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I agree with you that the political power we hold hasn't gone anywhere, because we didn't have much to begin with.
How? Do you want to be king or something?
I think I'm giving the wrong impression here.  When I said we don't have much political influence as individuals, it's not a complaint.  It's just a statement of fact.  I'm not expecting to have much influence among 300 million people.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is profoundly irrelevant. Even the people who do put "thought" in it aren't thinking in anywhere near the correct terms. It shouldn't be about a choice between the candidate with an (R) after their name and the candidate with a (D) after their name. The way the political process has evolved in the last ~225 years has rendered it void of any meaning. It's like asking whether or not someone with AIDS should spit on someone on fire. No, they shouldn't, but that is really missing the point.
Well, by the way you just described it, I have to wonder if there is a point.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We are still largely ahead of the curve. I don't have much reason to believe the rest of the world will cope with these problems any better than we are when they get to them.
No argument here.  I think as a species, we're all pretty much fucked soon, but that has less to do with governments and more to do with human nature.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Fuck. That.

I'd rather die with purpose than live in blissful ignorance. Happiness is seriously overrated.
Well, the way I see it...  instant gratification is a purpose too....
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For the most part, I agree with you that the political power we hold hasn't gone anywhere, because we didn't have much to begin with.
How? Do you want to be king or something?
I think I'm giving the wrong impression here.  When I said we don't have much political influence as individuals, it's not a complaint.  It's just a statement of fact.  I'm not expecting to have much influence among 300 million people.
Well then you as an an individual don't have much influence. We as in we the people do.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is profoundly irrelevant. Even the people who do put "thought" in it aren't thinking in anywhere near the correct terms. It shouldn't be about a choice between the candidate with an (R) after their name and the candidate with a (D) after their name. The way the political process has evolved in the last ~225 years has rendered it void of any meaning. It's like asking whether or not someone with AIDS should spit on someone on fire. No, they shouldn't, but that is really missing the point.
Well, by the way you just described it, I have to wonder if there is a point.
Finding a bucket of water would be a pretty good point. At least calling someone who might know where to get one would be good.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Fuck. That.

I'd rather die with purpose than live in blissful ignorance. Happiness is seriously overrated.
Well, the way I see it...  instant gratification is a purpose too....
No, it's not. It's satisfaction of animalistic desires.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well then you as an an individual don't have much influence. We as in we the people do.
In theory, yes.  In reality, a consortium of special interests hold the power.  So, the people with lobbyists have power.  Those without them don't really.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, it's not. It's satisfaction of animalistic desires.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

Anyway, to sum everything up. Corporations exist because of us, and they exist to serve us. Without our own inherent rational self interest (or greed) they wouldn't have anyone to sell their products to. They are a reflection of us, because they are us. Looking at a corporation is like looking into a mirror.
And like us they need a bit of sensible regulation and to face consequences for their decisions or they run amok.
Fuck Israel
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Anyway, to sum everything up. Corporations exist because of us, and they exist to serve us. Without our own inherent rational self interest (or greed) they wouldn't have anyone to sell their products to. They are a reflection of us, because they are us. Looking at a corporation is like looking into a mirror.
And like us they need a bit of sensible regulation and to face consequences for their decisions or they run amok.
Prosecute fraud and theft, yes. Regulation beyond that is a pile of garbage and a waste of paper because it's unenforceable.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well then you as an an individual don't have much influence. We as in we the people do.
In theory, yes.  In reality, a consortium of special interests hold the power.  So, the people with lobbyists have power.  Those without them don't really.
You have to remember what all this is in response to. We just went in a circle.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The political power the people hold hasn't gone anywhere. For political purposes our democratic rights haven't been significantly infringed upon at all. Frankly we've made leaps and bounds as far as making votes democratically fair, making sure ethnicity plays as little legal role in the system as we possibly can. The voting populace holds every bit of the power it did in 1787, if not significantly more considering the advances in communication. The vote is still the vote. There is plenty of readily-available information that indicates who is taking money from who and it doesn't take too much brain power to connect the dots after that. People are perfectly capable of continually voting out the representatives that they feel have not adequately represented their interests. The only difference is these days nobody cares. I don't mean nobody cares in the extremely minor sense that they don't get to the voting booth or they don't educate themselves on the issues. They don't care enough to engage their god given ability to put a goddamn coherent thought together about anything that's worth a damn.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, it's not. It's satisfaction of animalistic desires.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
By the definition of any reasonable standard it is. No natural instinct can justify itself.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have to remember what all this is in response to. We just went in a circle.
You keep assuming that we can vote in and vote out the corruption.  Lobbies already determine who can run before we even get to vote.  I mean, we could all choose to vote for grassroots candidates without lobbyist connections, but that's not going to happen.

It takes a lot of money to run for any office of importance.  The vast majority of the time, that money primarily comes from special interests, not personal donations.  Nearly every major election is won by people that are financially supported by special interests more than individuals.

To me, that says we don't really have the power.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

By the definition of any reasonable standard it is. No natural instinct can justify itself.
Most instincts are justified by self-preservation and continuance of the species.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

I mean, we could all choose to vote for grassroots candidates without lobbyist connections, but that's not going to happen.
This is all that matters. You don't need a dime to be elected, you don't need to be on the ballot. Those facts place the blame entirely on the people, not the system. You try to fix the part that isn't broken and you aren't going to get anywhere.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

By the definition of any reasonable standard it is. No natural instinct can justify itself.
Most instincts are justified by self-preservation and continuance of the species.
It's circular logic. You do x to survive so that you can reproduce so you can do x to survive. It can't justify itself. Some other purpose is required.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
Who are these faceless 'special interests'? They represent people.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I mean, we could all choose to vote for grassroots candidates without lobbyist connections, but that's not going to happen.
This is all that matters. You don't need a dime to be elected, you don't need to be on the ballot. Those facts place the blame entirely on the people, not the system. You try to fix the part that isn't broken and you aren't going to get anywhere.
Heh... well, fixing the people isn't going to happen.  The thought of that is...  well...  frankly I got a chuckle out of that....

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's circular logic. You do x to survive so that you can reproduce so you can do x to survive. It can't justify itself. Some other purpose is required.
Well..  that does encompass a lot of existence.  It's kind of like having a job.  Most of us do work that we really aren't that interested in, but we do it to make ends meet.   Animals hunt and fuck.  Humans work, shop, and fuck.   It's not that different.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Who are these faceless 'special interests'? They represent people.
Yes...  very wealthy people most of the time.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-30 21:53:13)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


How much did you donate to Washington last year?
Via taxes?

What are you asking?
How much do you give in political donations?  You don't have to give an exact amount...  just a rough estimate.
I don't.

How much do you give?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I mean, we could all choose to vote for grassroots candidates without lobbyist connections, but that's not going to happen.
This is all that matters. You don't need a dime to be elected, you don't need to be on the ballot. Those facts place the blame entirely on the people, not the system. You try to fix the part that isn't broken and you aren't going to get anywhere.
Heh... well, fixing the people isn't going to happen.  The thought of that is...  well...  frankly I got a chuckle out of that....
How feasible you think it may or may not be doesn't change the fact that the system isn't broken.

Humanity has changed drastically over its history.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's circular logic. You do x to survive so that you can reproduce so you can do x to survive. It can't justify itself. Some other purpose is required.
Well..  that does encompass a lot of existence.  It's kind of like having a job.  Most of us do work that we really aren't that interested in, but we do it to make ends meet.   Animals hunt and fuck.  Humans work, shop, and fuck.   It's not that different.
The similarities call into question the sanity of having job, it doesn't justify animal instincts.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Via taxes?

What are you asking?
How much do you give in political donations?  You don't have to give an exact amount...  just a rough estimate.
I don't.

How much do you give?
None...  So again, I must ask...  how much influence do you really think you have in our system?  I'm not suggesting that one person should have that much power, but since neither of us are part of a wealthy interest group, our votes don't mean much.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard