Let’s Talk about VUI: Voting Under the Influence
Sunday, 6. December 2009
The real face of our two-party but one-establishment system of politics seems to have made a rare appearance again with Obama’s speech last Tuesday. That is, to those among the wannabe gullible majority, since a small fraction have known this true face for a while. The good news is that finally we are seeing a significant number of apologists who are coming to the realization of being taken for a ride during this last election. The not so good news has to do with the depth of this new realization, thus the extreme vulnerability of being misdirected and exploited again, over and over, as has been done for decades.
Last May I put forth a discussion topic on the issue of casting votes based on the ‘lesser of two evils’ decision-making process. Here are the questions I posed back then, which I am posing again now that we have more people waking up to smell their new Whitehouse Roses:
“Don’t you consider this, at least to a degree, to be acceptance of ‘no hope for real change’ when it matters the most, during elections? First, to readily accept that we are limited to only choices that have been declared as viable by the same MSM and establishment we seek to change. Second, to helplessly adopt a mindset that says evilness is an inevitable prerequisite for viable candidates.”
Then this on the fallacy of justifying one’s choice-making process based on the ‘degree of evilness’:
“When it comes to ‘evilness,’ there is no reliable standard of measurement. Let’s say, for example, that the pre-selected options are: Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain. How do you measure their degree of ‘evilness?’ For arguments sake, let’s say there is a ‘standard of evilness’ measurement, and when applied to these candidates you get the following data: on a scale of ‘0 to 100’ on the evilness measurement index (‘100’ being absolute evil, ‘0’ being no evil qualities), McCain ranks 98, Clinton 96, and Obama 94. Based on this do people feel justified in voting for the lesser of the given three, even though that candidate still ranks extremely high in ‘evilness’? I’m just asking. I really want to get your take on this.”
Many referred to the previous administration’s figureheads as evil; many of us would find that aptly put and easily justified. After all, they sanctioned torture practices, extraordinary rendition, and world-wide assassinations; they took away civil liberties and put in place police practices ironically named the Patriot Act; they increased secrecy and decreased (ceased) accountability; they established untouchability and granted themselves immunity fit for kings, such as the State Secrets Privilege invocations; they spied on and illegally wiretapped Americans with no cause or oversight; they lied and engaged in preemptive wars …
Do we all agree with the evilness of all the practices mentioned above? Then, let’s be honest with ourselves, and let’s objectively plug in the same standards to the man who was marketed and sold to us by the establishment and its media tentacles as the ‘candidate of change, for change’:
The Obama Administration has agreed with and continued the Bush Administration’s illegal domestic wiretap practices. They have granted immunity to all involved in these unconstitutional and police state practices.
The Obama Administration has granted immunity to all criminals who’ve been engaged in illegal renditions and torture practices.
The Obama Administration has continued the previous administration’s secrecy practices, including the invocation of State Secrets Privilege, and the Executive Branch’s immunity from judicial oversight.
The Obama Administration has condoned and promoted the previous administration’s assault on American’s liberties through the Patriot Act.
The Obama Administration has fought against any rights for national security whistleblowers and blocked the passage of legislation attempting to grant protections to those who expose Executive branch criminality, waste, and abuse.
…
And now, with the latest on Afghanistan and the hints on Iran, we are seeing yet another side of this administration – previously coined evil for its predecessor. This time we are at least seeing some deserved reaction. Here is a recent commentary putting it in perspective:
“O=W” is a bumper sticker beginning to show up on liberals’ cars. After the president’s speech Tuesday night at West Point, I suspect it will spread rapidly.
For eight years, conservatives endured the agony of watching President George W. Bush attach the label “conservative” to a host of policies that were anti-conservative: Wilsonian wars, American empire, vast budget and trade deficits, increased entitlements, and the subordination of America’s interests to those of foreign powers. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and liberals are bidden to hold their tongues as President Obama makes Bush’s wars his own. The usual Washington sellout is in gear.
For me this paragraph is the best part; rarely found in other carbon-copy blogs and sites:
It should not come as a surprise. America is now a one-party state. The one party is the Establishment party, which is also the war party. Unless you are willing to cheer permanent war for permanent peace, you cannot be a member of the Establishment.
The paragraph above perfectly sums up the state of our political system. This is the point and inevitable conclusion I see missing in almost all other articles, editorials, and blog pundits. Don’t get me wrong. I see plenty of criticism out there directed at the Obama presidency, BUT, they all miss the real context, the core issue, thus, in the end they accomplish nothing in terms of the needed awakening.
For instance, a well-written commentary by a well-respected writer happens to have this very misleading title: “How the War Hawks Caged Obama.” Come on; give me a break! This is not some poor wild animal captured in a zoo, or a little child instructed by his parents, or an in-puberty adolescent engaged in mischief through ‘bad’ friends. This grown up president hand-picked his men and women, including the evil generals, such as Gates, HE decided to keep. I understand the blinded partisanship, and even more blinding denial, to treat this case as ‘…oh they made him so,’ or ‘…it is the pressure by the bad guys below’…But be a man, be honest with yourself and others, and treat this evil-doer just the same way you did (Yeah, I checked how you characterized (justifiably) the evil-doer administration before him) the other one.
Overcoming the destructive notion of Wasting One’s Vote
Last year, during the final stages of the primaries and the elections, I stood almost alone. I knew candidate Obama’s track record, which told me pretty much all I needed to know; that there weren’t going to be any changes, if not those for the worse. Not only did I have to counter-argue ‘vote for the lesser evil’ view, but I even had a few instances where a few ignoramuses actually accused me of being a racist! Their reasoning was: being an African-American minority proved Obama’s credibility and viability in bringing about the needed changes. Not only does that line of thinking itself happen to be absolutely racist, but it also defies any logic I could think of. I mean come on, I was looking at people who justifiably attacked and vilified Condoleezza Rice and Powell. Did either ones’ race or color have anything to do with who they were and what evil deeds they engaged in?!
I did not waste my vote on Obama or McCain. And, I am not going to give you one of those lines I truly despise ‘oh, I told you so.’ However I do want to bring up this notion of considering voting for an independent candidate as ‘waste of my vote, since he or she has no chance.’ Here is an excerpt from what I wrote last spring:
I know there are other candidates who are ‘much less evil’ and have much better track records. However, as you see, they don’t have a chance. The MSM and the establishment have either marginalized them or never acknowledged them in the first place. They have no chance, thus, I won’t ‘waste my vote and will choose between the ‘viable’ candidates declared ‘electable.’
We don’t give those ‘better’ candidates a chance even when we believe in them and their competence. What if every one of us who’ve been active and pushing for ‘real changes’ disregarded the ‘established’ etiquette of candidate viability, went out and actually voted for the candidate we trusted ? What if by doing this that ‘nonviable’ candidate ended up with, lets’ say 15% of total votes? Granted he or she has not become the ultimate winner, elected, but what do you think that 15% would mean in the next election? Would it encourage more people to do the same, cast their vote based on what they really believe? Would it motivate better people to rise up and take on leadership? Would it help the current landscape of the MSM – promoting coverage of a ‘people’s candidate’? And finally, what if two election seasons later we get to see a ‘people’s candidate’ with 50% or more of votes cast?
A while back I wrote ‘The Two Sides of the Same Coin’ on Obama’s presidency within its first 6 months. My list of his changes on changes in that article has by now tripled or maybe even quadrupled. I stand proudly with my record on ‘not wasting my vote.’ I hope more people are coming to the needed realization that their votes based on ‘lesser of the two evils’ and ‘not wasting my vote’ were indeed wasted. I hope to see more people voting as a statement of where they stand and what they truly believe, rather than casting votes on either side of the same coin presented to them by those above.
I hope this post-Obama speech awakening will be neither short-lived nor misdirected. While the Party-Connected media, websites, and blogs are savvy enough to know that real criticism is in order after Obama’s decision for the surge, they are pro-establishment enough to change the tune and misguide, misdirect, and misinform when the time comes for the next elections. That’s when both parties, tied together at the top as one big party, the war party, the establishment party, will try to have you drink the same Kool-aid again, walk the same path, think the same thoughts, and vote the same vote to elect those deemed viable and subservient by the now ruling establishment.
This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.
Bill Bergman Says:
America is now a one-party state? No, we’ve had thriving two-party state for some time, and it is still there. There are the Democrats and Republicans, and the other party is the rest of us.
A bit simplistic. One nuance is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. A Democrat will come up to you, tell you that the government is going to take your money and give it to other people, and then the Democrat takes your money and gives it to other people. The Republican comes up to you, smiles, and says that the government should be limited and and taxes should be low, and then the Republican takes your money and gives it to other people.
Evil? If you expect people to pursue their selfish interests, and don’t presume that our leaders in government are somehow above that, then we get what we expect, and deserve. But evil? Well, yes, especially now that we have Democrats that tell us they are for hope and change, and then take our money and give it to the Republicans (and the Democrats) that are one party in our two-party state.
Bill Bergman Says:
… and in talking about evil, well, lying to go to war resulting in thousands of deaths, well, sorry for not mentioning that above.
T Says:
Good points in this post. Especially when talking about the hardcore Obama supporters.
If you dare to criticize him, then some will label you as racist. No I’m not. I’m a realist. Then you try to patiently (and hopefully politely?) point out all of the similiarities between him and the Previous Guy.
Despite doing that, some of these people refuse to face it. Well, we only really had two choices.
No you didn’t. You had several other choices that the MSM crushed. Dissent by many people isn’t tolerated. Protests aren’t tolerated because that will get some MSM person fired. It doesn’t matter that they have the right to be there and to be heard. It doesn’t matter that now your guy Obama keeps going with the “all opinions deserve to be heard” soundbites.
Yet, if I exercise my right to be involved and make informed criticisms, instantly I’m racist. Give him time. Don’t be so unfair.
I’m not being unfair. In that job you have no 90-day trial period. And the reality is he’s not doing his job.
In the real world, if you don’t do your job there are consequences. Yet in politics, that doesn’t apply?
So yes, there are other choices. Also, as Sibel and many others know, to change this system means endless hours of unglamourous thankless work. You won’t get rich. You won’t get your own syndicated radio talk show.
Yet, you just get some satisfaction in doing the right thing. And what price tag can you put on that?
Ishmael Says:
I bought the Lie in 2008. I registered over 300 voters here in NM and helped make NM a Democratic state. What a joke that turned out to be. So I offer this youtube video by AIM activist and Santee Sioux poet John Trudell, the guy I want to be when I grow up. In it he addresses the topics of voting vs non-voting and how to use our coherent thoughts to come up with action plans of non-cooperation with the current system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O36ucz4AUFw
As for me, I’m seriously thinking of changing my voter registration to the Communist Party and, if I can survive to the next election cycle, running for Congress as a Communist alternative to the one-party state on a platform of abolishing ALL elective offices in favor of random computer selection for all state and federal political offices from IRS tax rolls.
Miguel Says:
In all the focus on Obama, let’s not forget Congress. There may be only a handful of Congressmen/Senators that seem to have any integrity at all. And those few honest one are usually labeled “kooks” or “eccentrics” or “extremists”.
As for Obama, I am sad to say that I have tuned him out, literally and figuratively. First there was the Rahm Emanuel pick. Then the Geithner fiasco. Then Hillary as Secretary of State. Then the lack of even one progressive Cabinet choice. Sellouts on civil liberties, wiretaps, the war, health care, etc. Finally, I began to realize us liberals had been snookered. I guess the only bright side to Obama is that war with Iran seems less inevitiable.
woozle Says:
First of all, Sibel: I agree with all five of your points about Obama continuing Bush’s policies. I would add that Obama also renewed the state of emergency declared by Bush shortly after 9/11 and faithfully renewed every year since then.
(A caveat, though, before getting to my main point: I do defend Obama against those who claim that he is overall just as bad as Bush — who pushed enthusiastically for things that Obama is being criticized for going along with — but I agree that it is beginning to look like this dispute is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues than anything worth spending time on — political theatre to keep us busy. Too bad. I voted for him, and if the election were held again I would probably do the same due to the lack of a sane alternative, but it is certainly beginning to look like our hopes have been betrayed.)
Now, voting: Yes, the system is a mess and does not represent the wishes or needs of the people it is supposed to be representing.
It seems to me that this is a problem inherent in binary one-candidate-per-vote voting — the dominant party can only be successfully challenged if there is no split in the competition, thus creating the “two party system” as a duopoly — a one-party system plus political theatre.
I don’t know if you have a solution in mind, but here’s mine in a nutshell:
We have the technology (internet and web) to set up a system — without help from Big Money — where we, the people, can decide along more rational lines what it is that we want, and then act unilaterally on those decisions. I am working on such a project myself (in my spare time, with no external funding), but it is going slowly due to other demands on my time. (If anyone knows of anyone else working on such a thing, I would be happy to throw my effort in with their project.)
I could describe what I’m doing in more detail, but the last time I tried to post a link here, the comment vanished without a trace… so here’s a non-link: issuepedia.org/InstaGov
Comments and suggestions welcome.
camusrebel Says:
Well laid out diagnosis. We must slay the 2 headed dragon. So much blustering hot air in the media is about my side this, your side that, yadda-yadda….the sheeple love that crap. The false dichotomy is clear.
Anything reinforcing or even accepting the left/right paradigm is part of the problem. I’ve said for a long time that the Dem. and the Repub. parties should be outlawed. They both have oceans of blood on their hands, a long history of letting war criminals off scott free and looting treasury are among the countless crimes we could hold them accountable for. A true list would be lengthy indeed.
After both parties have been outlawed, leaders imprisoned, we can have the Article V convention. Then we can develop a true MULTI party system where working together and consenus are common and beneficial to THE PEOPLE, not look upon as a weakness.
I teach at a Charter School in DC. All black kids. Last year they all wanted to know who I was voting for. It’s what we in the profession call a “teachable moment”. When I told them I support Cynthia McKinney it provoked a lot of great discussion. Of course none of them had ever heard of her, or the Green Party. So I had them examine exactly why they had not heard of her. Suffice to say, many of them have and will think long and hard before ever voting for a Democrat.
ZicaTanka Says:
Sibel, thanks for revisiting this topic. Please bring it up again in October 2012 (and before)!
How about a BF “stamp of approval”? Maybe Mr. Jamiol could create the graphic which approved candidates could add to their websites/literature. (This could be used for journalists as well.)
Here are some of my thoughts from the last time around:
Sibel, actually, the numbers are there already, and in the millions.
We need to call off the damned progressive dogs who bark everytime an inependent walks by.
AND
The only thing we can do with integrity at the polls is to vote for the candidate we like the best, even if that happens to be 3rd, 4th, 5th party, or write-in.
If we can stand to have that integrity, which IS about us as individuals, our votes might just do some good, even if it takes multiple election cycles. And if some of us would stop acting as whips for the D and R parties, when we don’t agree with them, more of us would be able to stand it.
It’s hard to lose, but there is positive consequence to a conscientious vote, one of the first being able to (smug or not) know that we did it. It has to start somewhere because forever is a long time to wait for the powers that be to give us a better chance.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@BillBergman: “No, we’ve had thriving two-party state for some time, and it is still there. There are the Democrats and Republicans, and the other party is the rest of us.” Well said.Now let’s make that other party the majority. Count me in; Ivve been there for a while and intend to stay where I am.
@Miguel: You are right. In facy, I’d say ‘congress’ comes before the presidential candidate as far as the degree of importance goes. We’ll, Nov 2010 is less than a year from now…I’m ready; let’s do it.
@Woozle: I concur. As for Obama’s degree of evilness?…I don’t know. I’d say in a way more risky: with the other guy it was easier to see through him, with this one: a true polished snake oil salesman…two-faced double talking little puppet… I am going to check your site; sounds interesting.
@ Camusrebel: You did not waste your vote.
@ ZicaTanka: keep going; this is exactly what I’bm looking for: people like yourself offering alternatives…
More later…
remo Says:
The speech was disgusting. A myopic delivered for the oligarchs. Like listening to shyam sunder deliver NIST reportWTC 7.
well, theres going to be a march on washington, so get out there. give him HEAPS. Get a couple of million outraged antiwar protesters yelling at the castle doors and maybe force the situation……But out number the tazars and noise and water cannon and stench weapons, the clubs and the teargas and the ‘move move move’ black uniformed automatons trained and waiting…outnumber them by a 1000 to one, and, after the cartels call Macrystal back to to sort out their bloodied democracy on home turf, well……who knows. these guys are involved in and by murder. Thats what got us here. This is where we are. The business of murder. Nobody is going to just GIVE anything back to anyone.
contextofnocontext Says:
The Simpsons’ Treehouse of Horror episode ‘Citizen Kang’ is probably one of the most brilliant critiques of the Two-Party system ever created – and in the Clinton years no less. I’m sure the comparison’s already been made, but some of the Alien speeches even remind me of Obama-rhetoric: “We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always whirling, whirling, whirling towards freedom.”
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!” Isn’t that pretty much the exact same response as “the lesser of two evils”?
For a (slightly) less animated version of the same sentiment, there’s also this take from Ron Paul.
tonywicher Says:
The grip of the military-industrial complex has gotten stronger every year since the end of WWII under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
But I do not agree with the equation “Obama = Bush”. The “lesser of two evils” argument still holds for me. I think politicians including Obama do not have that much power. I got a genuine feeling of reluctance from Obama’s speech. As a politician, he must be worried about taking ownership of a war that is already very unpopular with the American people and especially his own base.
SanderO Says:
For many of those who still believed that politicians represent the voters this past election of Obama might be the last time they do.
His candidacy enlisted many young voters, old voters who believed his smooth rhetoric that we would be seeing change within the beltway.
We’ve seen none. Many feel they were sold a “bill of goods”. They were.
The effect will be many many voters will stay home.
But many are calling for term limits and looking for INDEPENDENT candidates who will pledge not to take corporate money or any large donations and stay in office for a single term.
Money had completely perverted the process and our congress’ constituents are clearly corporations and “special interests”.
We have one party now – the corporate party
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@contextofnocontext: Both of your ref.s-excellent. How did I miss that speech by Dr.Paul?! one more + for his column. Many thanks for sharing.
@tonywicher: I agree with your point on MIC. However, I disagree with your view on Obama; 100%. It sounds like the previous apologies by the blinded apologists: ‘oh, he’s been in office only for XX days,’ then, later, ‘still too early give the guy chance/time…’… and now, ‘oh, it’s not him but all those bad guys below him pressuring.’ You know what: then let’s not have a president. Unless you are fine with seeing a patsie, a no-spine, no-courage, no-stregth, figure head who talks beautifully…Not only that, here is why it is actually worse coming from him: with the previous guy we used labels like: dumb, stupid, lunatic, now, this do-no-gooder happens to be a constitutional expert, ey?! So, he is knowingly butchering our constitution (Patriot Act, State Secrets Privilege, etc.). To me, that makes him as bad of not worse than Bush. And don’t forget: he’s turned his back to every single promise he’d given (on the record); not one, not two, not only this surge, but every single one so far…Anyway, I may disagree with you (strongly), but I truly appreciate you sharing with us your view/take over here; please don’t stop:-)
woozle Says:
@ ZicaTanka: voting for alternative-party candidates will only work if we decide amongst ourselves who to vote for, unanimously — and then push that candidate in the mainstream as well*. Otherwise the vote will be fatally split.
*Kind of like forming a new political party, really. We may well need to form a coalition of the minor parties, which should be possible if they have any integrity — and if they don’t, then there’s no sense in trying to convince them of the need for solidarity.
ZicaTanka Says:
@Woozle: I encourage more than one alternative. I have a lot in common with a lot more people that way (ask my R and D neighbors, who I hoped to have helped consider their own independent/alternative choices in 2008). We need more seeds and diverse ones to replenish the system. There’s an alternative to D/R for everyone. I see power corrupting a single alternative party as it grows. With the inherent danger of becoming New Coke.
hatchcar Says:
Hello Sibel! First and foremost, I don’t know if I’m helping or not helping. I haven’t voted since 2000. (Actually, I did vote in 2008, but I wrote in Ron Pauls name on the ballot. He’s the one I agreed with more than any of them)
So I guess I can take my beating here. I’m of the opinion that if you think voting is going to change anything, you haven’t been paying attention. I mean what isn’t even being addressed is the use of electornic voting machines, that with a flip of switch, can change any results to whom ever is in favor.
I personally think the biggest hurdle that is facing this country is this whole “left v right” “liberal v conservative” claptrap that persists in all aspects of the major media, talk shows, and pundits. It’s their lifeblood, once the fraud is exposed, they are finished. I think this has to “change” before any meaningful “change” could ever take place.
I volunteered for Ron Paul’s campaign. I donated the max to his campaign. He was about change, and he cured some many people of apathy that had built up over the years, since most people who think with their heads figured long ago there was no difference between the R’s and D’s.
Keep in mind also that if any significant challenge from third parties is ever to take place, election laws have to be changed in the 50 states in order to make them more competitive. People also have the clear their minds of the idea that centralized power will make us all better off. The more decentralized and the powers dispersed throughout the country, it’s less likely that corruption, and the ever growing police state could ever happen. Sorry to get long winded.
BTW Sibel, this is Jean Carbonneau, the person a while back who wrote on one of your blog entries about when people actually do get involved in matters is when something happens to them, or someone they know. Don’t know if you remember, but not a big deal. I personally have nothing to hide from anyone who has nothing better to do then monitor blogs, and opinions of citizens who just want to be left alone, and want redress their grievances. BEst wishes, and Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to you and your family.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@hatchcar (Jean): Of course I remember you, and your comment(s), and that I quoted you in one of my posts:-) As for “Sorry to get long winded”: Not at all; thank you for sharing and doing so articulate (as you always do). I tend to agree with & share many points/views/stand put forth by Dr. Paul; not all, but many. I respect him a lot, and I’ve been chasing him and his office for an interview (Boiling Frogs Show). I’d love (really love) to have him on our show. I’m sure you’ve read it already, but if not, check out his speech on ‘Police State USA’ delivered in 2002…
Please come and visit regularly, and post comments (make them as long as you wish!). Finally: Best Wishes to you too.
remo Says:
Where does C O G come into all of this then? The ‘secret ‘annexes to COG set into play by Cheney on 911 that congress and committees on homeland security are not allowed to see. confirmed in 07? Is it not still in operation? Has Obama signed off on that?
where does the speech take us really.??
SanderO Says:
@ Sibel Edmonds + Tony Wicher
Both are good points. Either the executive has no real power and is simply a figurehead of state and so he can only do what he’s told, or he has some level of independence or even a lot of independence, so much so that he can set agendas and policy initiative.
Obama ran on the latter notion – that HE could change the agenda. Was he lying? Maybe. Did he find out that he could say whatever he wanted until he was elected and then found that he was really a figurehead and would be given very little leeway? Maybe.
His actions certainly need some serious explaining because people can see that they don’t align with his promises – many of them.
Many give the excuse that the momentum of the Bush years is hard to stop and turn 180° in 1 year. But where is the repeat of EVEN the campaign rhetoric? He’s backing away from even that as if it’s gone down the memory hole forever.
I supported Denis K and voted for Obama as the only choice, but was not hoping for much as I thought he would be boxed out of doing anything by the establishment – MIC, corps, special interests. That certainly was operative and he showed no fight against it… rather compliance… wall streetv main street bailout, folded on national security state issues, folded on health care, and came out with lame rationale for warring in Afghanistan and continues ILLEGAL drone attacks on civilians even into Pakistan, backing away on ALL Gitmo issues and is convicting KSM despite evidence that the crime of 9/11 is far from solved.
I support term limits and no for profit groups allowed to lobby congress, complete public finance of all elections and all MEDIA must donate FREE advertising for political campaigns and return to paper ballots.
Macu Naima Says:
Many years ago I questioned a Chinese diplomat as to why Mao was permitting the war criminals Kissinger and Nixon to visit China. After all they had been responsible for closing off China to the rest of the world. “It doesn’t matter” he replied. Incredulous, I asked him what he meant by that. “The difference between Democrats and Republicans” he said “was that Republicans will stab you in the stomach, while Democrats will stab you in the back.”
I never forgot that and I told the story to Ralph Nader at the 2004 VFP Convention in Boston while we were having lunch and discussing the very same “lesser of two evils” conundrim you mentioned above.
Keep up the good fight, Sibel.
Macu
Simon Says:
The Cage theory. Let’s assume that the charisma of Obama came from a soul still intact. Once in the cage, all efforts are made to compromise that soul. Now that the extended health care debate is adequately covering the next level of atrocity in Pakistan – unlimited drone bombing by Xe and company under the auspices of the CIA – perhaps the evidence is in, that Obama’s soul is going to the dark side. After all once a soul decides to kill human beings, there are only so many slivers that can be saved. Ask Harry Potter.
Mizgin Says:
The US has been a one-party state for a long time. The only difference between the Soviets and the US is that the Soviets had dissenters.
I can’t believe that so many people fell for the same thing in 2008 as they did in 2006. I guess that’s why they’re called sheep.
As for “wasted” votes, are they really “wasted” if you vote your values? Or maybe it’s just that so many people in the US share the values of the corporatocracy?
Ishmael has the right idea, though. If you want another alternative on the ballot, you have to go out and get the voters registered for the alternative and how that goes will depend on the laws for each state. Some states have laws that require X number of voters registered for an alternative party in order to appear on the ballot for every election. If you don’t have X number, then you have to go the petition route for every election. In this way, instead of having the top-down system of the Demopublicans handed to you, you have to create a bottom-up system, and that takes work.
In my state, at least the Greens were an alternative that I can live with.
One more thing . . . it doesn’t seem as though the bank bailouts had any effect on how people voted and that was a Demopublican decision.
Ah, the values of the corporatocracy.
Mizgin Says:
Before I forget . . . Speaking of the “lesser of two evils” brings to mind a bumper sticker I saw: “Satan for President. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?”
woozle Says:
@ ZicaTanka: More than one candidate for us to discuss and consider, yes — but if we were to field someone to run against the DemRep party candidates, we would all need to decide (in a process analogous to a primary) which of those choices to fully support – or else there is absolutely no point in bothering.
ZicaTanka Says:
Maybe some common traits for diverse alternatives to receive a “BF Approved” stamp could be:
* Promotes ballot access fairness for smaller candidates/parties
* Promotes election reform (paper trails/open source code/monitoring/instant run-off)
* Promotes campaign finance reform
* Has proven to be a truth teller/solid/honest
* Is not R/D
Others?
@woozle: I honestly think we should promote various alternative candidates, not because we would all vote for them, but because we want to get EVERYONE off the R/D railroad to Eviltown and not just onto a new and improved track. We need multiple parties/interests to have viability to ensure future growth.
I swear, the percentage of people I talk to about voting, and say “I would vote for (fill in the alt blank), but (s)he can’t win” is well over 90. I’m so disgusted with that line:
We can’t win
We need a better system before we can
There’s no point
Etc.
If people could stop telling themselves that, they would be allowed at least to have their own personal integrity at the polls. And, personally, I think the “alternative” is probably the “majority”.
Some neighbors and I disagree fundamentally about some political philosophy, but, after some discussion, we all voted for non-R/D candidates. To me, that is success.
ZicaTanka Says:
Mizgin – nice bumper sticker reference.
zaknick Says:
I was also taken for a ride by that con-man. I seriously believed he was a decent man who was going to bring some order to these fascisti but I will also confess to being naive.
@BillBergman
“Evil? If you expect people to pursue their selfish interests, and don’t presume that our leaders in government are somehow above that, then we get what we expect, and deserve. But evil? Well, yes, especially now that we have Democrats that tell us they are for hope and change, and then take our money and give it to the Republicans (and the Democrats) that are one party in our two-party state.”
Man, you have no idea what these bastards have done to enrich themselves while crying “national security, TOP SECRET”.
Also, a country that has thousands of nukes doesn’t need an army except for conquest; the resist is pure BS.
CENSORED Says:
I’m really zaknick I just created this other account because my posts are being CENSORED??
zaknick Says:
My Mac won’t allow me to post anything on many of my favorite yet important blogs (like this one
)… how strange.
My Web site stats at statcounter, where I had lots of IP records from US gov entities, where tampered with; yep, their visits are gone (I have copies).
wewy wewy stwange
Must be getting to somebody roflmao
mopoincade Says:
Obama’s speech had it’s fair share of hard-to-stomach double-speak, such as this line (in light of drone civilian casualties for instance):
“But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism.”
I don’t disagree with Sibel that it is fair to treat Obama as an evil-doer, but I also admit that I don’t know what obfuscated pressures are on Obama, and what information he has that I don’t. How do I really know that this isn’t the “best” Obama can offer us? All I know is that this is far from the best that I can imagine, and that the thought that Obama is going to make everything better is as useless now as it ever was.
We all need to realize that no one person can solve our problems. No great leader can solve today’s problems–it will take each of us believing in ourselves as well as what we can do together. Even the equivalent of MLK or Ghandhi might do more harm than good. Maybe “O=W” bumper stickers will be what it takes to really unite this country.
I wrote Ron Paul in on my absentee ballot, sealed the envelope and threw it away, but I probably would have voted for Obama if I was voting in a more hotly contested state.
JamesLaffrey Says:
Great post, Sibel Edmonds.
While I agree with you, and this post has many fine comments, I’d like to go the next step.
We have two parties that seem as one. Why? Because both are fully corrupted by some people with more power – more wealthy and quite ruthless. This knowledge is prerequisite for anyone hoping to govern our country and make it a representative democracy again. It must not come as a surprise, as perhaps it did to Obama after he sold himself to the banksters last year.
Supporting points:
Afghanistan. Obviously, Obama is forced (by his acceptance of the power elite’s support in the 2008 election) to keep the U.S. military there. Why?
- No matter how “unwinnable,” the U.S. presence EXCLUDES any presence by any other powerful nation, especially China and Russia. The USA’s ever-growing chain of military bases there ensures that.
- Therefore, the resources – especially oil – are controlled by the USA. No other nations can use the resources nor the transit lanes to increase their power.
- Dominoes. Don’t you see it? The U.S. used to be afraid of the Communists felling countries like dominoes (a major reason for the horrendous U.S. action in Southeast Asia). Now, the U.S. is felling countries like dominoes. Afghanistan. Iraq. Now back to Afghanistan. Why? Iran or Pakistan are in danger of being the next domino. Iran, intelligently, wants nukes to prevent a U.S. invasion. Nukes would seem to be the only defense. But Pakistan is such a fractured mess (largely thanks to the U.S. interference, right?), that if the U.S. could place assets in control of the nuclear missile system in Pakistan, the U.S. would suddenly and magically find Osama Bin Laden in Islamabad.
I think it’s obvious now that the top tier of the power elite is the American banksters, British banksters, and Israeli banksters. Major international corporations are allowed, through money flow, to operate as they please as long as their actions aren’t against the elite’s interests. The governments of our three countries are allowed the same leeway. (Dems and Repubs are free to tussle over abortion, but their decisions are done deals in regard to war and banks. If Obama were to grow a conscience, there’d soon be a funeral – politically or otherwise, as necessary.)
We like to use Zbigniew Brzezinski as the touchstone to the world-dominance group. He is a leader in the web of revolving-door semi-elite going from corporate positions to government positions, back and forth.
All of the above explains the biggest WHY questions of our time.
- Why doesn’t one of the major parties, when in power, clean up the domestic corruption, serve the people, and thus win enduring support and authority for the foreseeable future?
- Why do the crimes against the Constitution, against us, get covered up by both parties? And when outed, the criminals remain immune to prosecution – no matter which party is in power.
- And why do our three countries support and protect each other no matter what international crimes are committed?
The power elite retain their national links to keep tight hold on the reins of banking and military machines.
- Eisenhower warned us as he was stepping out of power, not in. He lived.
- Some say John F. Kennedy was heeding Eisenhower’s warning. He died.
- Martin Luther King Jr. was unbuyable, wasn’t he? He died.
- Robert F. Kennedy may have been a man on a mission, partly for revenge. He died.
Why is Ralph Nader still alive? They successfully marginalized him long ago. He has no power. He can’t fill The Mall in Washington, D.C.
So, for now, we don’t have to worry. But how brave are we? How brave will we be? If you can’t answer, “Brave like MLK,” then just stay in your seat there and hit “submit comment” from time to time. I think Sibel is Brave like MLK. I wish she’d been born in this country so she could be president. For our other potential leaders, ask yourself, how brave will you be?
contextofnocontext Says:
Re individual action, noncompliance:
From the Time Magazine statement the writers of the show published upon completing the fifth season of The Wire – “If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun’s manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens.”
…just a thought
ZicaTanka Says:
@JamesLafferty: What’s your solution to the dim worldview you present? I think Sibel The Great is asking for our help. Are you going to follow in line to say “We can’t, without something else changing for us first”?
Why don’t we all stop trying to scare the shit out of each other?
Sibel’s project here is growing. How can we help?
ZicaTanka Says:
@contextofnocontext: I definitely agree that the drug war is a sham, as do many others here.
What is your take on Voting Under the Influence? How did your opinion about the “War on Drugs” effect your vote?
JamesLaffrey Says:
@ZicaTanka:
Is a name important? Yes. I’m not the famous actor. My name on this website is my real name.
Also in light of your comment @ me above, I’m not surprised that you forgot my previous comments urging specific action, which you replied to.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/11/22/site-updates-for-november-23/
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2009/11/27/podcast-show-13/#comments
For other readers, I refer you to the links above, so we can avoid long redundancies on this thread.
woozle Says:
@ ZicaTanka: Here’s my reasoning.
Let’s call the standard issue RepDem politicians “lizards”, after the Douglas Adams bit about the planet which had been conquered by lizards who then proceeded to rule democratically. The people couldn’t get rid of the lizards because nobody would vote for a non-lizard because they were afraid the wrong lizard might win. The people we want to win are the non-lizards.
1. Any vote for a non-lizard is “wasted” if a lizard wins.
2. The media will only give exposure to lizards, because the media are owned by lizards.
3. A large segment of the population does not make any effort to think outside of the framing provided by the media, and hence will only vote for a lizard.
4. The segment of the population which does not become aware of a movement to get rid of the lizards will also mostly vote for lizards, going on the “lesser of two evils” logic. I can’t blame them, because, in the absence of a widespread movement to put forth a non-lizard candidate, I would do the same. I would much rather have the lesser of two evils than risk a re-run of the Bush presidency. (Hmm, that’s a thought: maybe the Bush presidency was the lizards’ way of instilling more antipathy towards non-lizard candidates… and also squashing our hope for human rationality by showing us that a large segment of the population would in fact vote for Darth Vader if the lizard media told them to.)
5. If we look at past presidential elections, presumably-non-lizard* candidates received only a tiny percentage of the vote. This being the case, it is going to be a serious uphill climb to get a non-lizard anywhere near being electable, even if we all agree on who is right for the job. (We might do better at the Congressional level, because there are already a handful of non-lizard Congresspeople out there, but there are problems with that strategy as well.)
(*If you want to argue that some of these candidates were in fact lizards, that’s a valid argument — but if so, this would underscores the need for better lizard-filtration. We don’t currently have a good/trusted way of doing that, though we have the tools to build one.)
So that’s why I think we ultimately need to decide on one candidate to back (per office), if we’re going to do something about the system via reform from within.
woozle Says:
@ JamesLaffrey: Please feel free to use issuepedia.org as a venue for connecting the dots and documenting the connections. I’ve done a little work on this, but my time is scarce and the sheer volume of information takes a lot of time to digest properly.
SanderO Says:
James critique rings largely true.
I suspect that in the move to consolidation by monopoly capitalism fewer and few players with more and more power emerged. This arc took many years and involved the decoupling of corporate activity from government control and oversight.
The result is that many corporations are richer and have more power than MANY nations. They have managed to exist borderless, yet maintain enormous policy influence in the most powerful countries,
Capitalism and capital go together like hand in glove. This was manifest in the role capital and finance played in the globalization and monopoly capitalism (consolidation). Institutions like the Fed which are central banks but private control the money supply and insert money into the economy for investment (and speculation), mergers and acquisitions, leveraged buy outs and other ponzi schemes to make wealth, but not human progress that is advance society.
The political process, the media and virtually all major sectors of the economy follow the monopoly capitalist paradigm. Government is now working for corporations and special interests and not the governered. The revolving door is one sign that this is operative. Government has become a kabuki a show, where it appears that people have power, elect the leaders and representative of their choosing, but this is a charade. Elections are typically stolen or rigged and definitely manipulated to the point where most people don’t even vote or are prevented from voting. And with the monopoly power of the two parties, no serious challenge to the status quo is possible. They have even written laws which make sure this will never happen.
The national security state has arisen to serve several “needs”. It is a huge monopoly industry to suck the US treasury resources of the people extracted as taxes. It can operate in the dark with no accountability and hence it is answerable not to the governed by those who benefit from monopoly policies.
Ms Edmonds worked for the FBI believing that this organization worked for the governned. But she found out that the FBI serves the elite and its public purpose is largely a sham. Sure they will solve crimes to appear to be what they are supposed to be, but this is only cover for the fact that they, like the CIA are the palace guards for the elite.
It is getting hard to hide this sham, as people such as Ms Edmonds who naively once believed in the mission of the FBI and worked fro them, learn that when they discover the ugly stuff they are ostracized and gagged. Those such as Ray McGovern as they moved to the left are made to look like disgruntled loose cannons and given no platform in the monopoly controlled MSM the propaganda and “mind control” wing of the monopoly capitalists with their global agenda of hegemony.
There’s a bit of a bridge game going on where alliances are made for agendas of different interest which can align with respect to policy initiatives. So you have the MIC and the US government supporting Israel’s zionist agenda, or certainly not being even handed in the conflict. Or you find blow hards like Guiliani or Kerik who are out for personal enrichment, who will get in bed with anyone, oppress anyone to cash out. And then there are the low level hangers on who make out and eagerly do the bidding for the more public blowhard pushing the global agenda such as Thomas Friedman who is married to one of the wealthiest mall owners and operators in the USA. No wonder he pushes globalism and the flat earth… all the junk sold to American is done so in his wife’s malls. Conflict of interest?
Globalization is screwing the people and the planet we inhabit. I don’t think those who are driving this madness think of the future and if they do, they aren’t telling what their vision of it is. It would get you up in arms.
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@Censored/Zaknik: Please go and read the post I had on the site, software, WordPress, and the problem with some comments being filtered automatically (seems to be with no reason)..Once you read that, you come back here and apologize for hasty and very ugly accusation you made. You’ve been on this site long enough to know me and my ethics. I won’t have people being disrespectful or accusatory without any decency or ration. If you can’t be that, get yourself another place and don’t come back here. I hope I mae myself clear here. There are too many serious issues out there, and I have too much on my plate, so no time to spend in this kind of communication…
ZicaTanka Says:
@JamesLaffrey: Woops! Twice! My apologies for the name misspelling and not referencing your former comments.
ZicaTanka Says:
@JamesLaffrey: But, I still have to say that we’ve got a stream of comments about how bad things are with hardly any positive efforts being made. (And those comments were on different posts. Though I do like the idea of demanding resignations.)
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle: I definitely understand and respect your perspective, but have to disagree. If you break things down to their most basic parts, what you have is a person going to the polls to vote for whom the like the best. Without that basic principle, any political structure will be corrupt.
And that is a principle that everyone can understand. And it will last longer than any new party.
I like what you said about consolidation. It should be promoted as well. I just don’t think it should be singular.
woozle Says:
@ZicaTanka: I agree with you in a sense.
You object to my assertion that unanimity is necessary if we are going to make any progress. I agree that requiring unanimity goes against liberal principles. In a sense, it is a large part of the current problem: each party may have multiple popular candidates, but they put all their money and resources behind whoever is elected at the convention, thus marginalizing anyone who isn’t the best fit for the party’s agenda (but who might actually be better for the country).
What I am proposing is a better way of reaching that unanimity, one that leaves out preconceived agendas and actually reflects what people want and need.
Since there is no way to get the country to adopt such a system wholesale, we will need to use it ourselves — we decide what non-lizard would do best at representing the will of the people, and then we *all* agree to stand behind that person even if they weren’t our first choice, because otherwise none of the non-lizards stands a chance under the current system.
Note that this last step is only necessary in order to overcome the field-tilting design flaw in the current system; if the current voting system were replaced with something which more accurately represented the will of the voters, then we wouldn’t need to band together against it.
Until we do, however, the current voting system will remain tilted against fair representation of the voters’ wishes.
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle: Been reading about your InstaGov project. Looks like you’ve put a lot of thought into it.
How do compare and contrast “Range Voting” to current instant run-off systems?
woozle Says:
@ ZicaTanka: as I understand it, Range Voting arrives at an answer which represents the voters’ actual wishes with a much smaller degree of error than any other voting method. I can give you both the intuitive and the quantitative on this…
Intuitive: think about it — in range voting, the voters are putting much more information into the system, with fewer constraints. in instant runoff, you have to rank the candidates in order which gives you fewer possible levels and no way to indicate the difference between two candidates you really don’t like. More information about your preferences means that it’s theoretically possible to arrive at a better compromise between what people would like best and what they would be willing to put up with.
It would certainly be preferable to what we have now, however.
Quantitative: Take a look at this, which models the results of different voting systems — including “plurality” (the current system in US elections) and “instant runoff” but not “range”. The simulations are based on the idea that candidates can be defined by their location on a one-dimensional range, which is obviously an oversimplification but is still a useful model for understanding how the voting methods fail to accurately capture voter preference.
For more on range voting, take a look here.
(I have no affiliation with either of those web sites.)
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@mizgin: I want that bumper sticker too!!
I am really enjoying this discussion thread; many thanks to all of you. Now, I am going to need your help and support to publish posts on some solid ‘I’ candidates as we near the next election cycle (2010-Nov). Considering the shortage of time & resources: how do we go about identifying a few stars, and do our best to introduce them here at BFP? Please bring in your suggestions.
ZicaTanka Says:
@Sibel: What do you think of this list of possible traits?
* Has proven to be a truth teller/solid/honest
* Supports Whistleblower protections
* Promotes ballot access fairness for smaller candidates/parties
* Promotes election reform
* Promotes campaign finance reform
* Is not R/D
@woozle: Thanks for the info. Range voting makes sense to me. I’ll keep reading about your project.
woozle Says:
@ Sibel: I like ZicaTanka’s suggestions, and would like to add another one — which is a little difficult to explain, but could be a bit of a game changer. (We need to change the game somehow if we’re going to succeed, I think.)
Something like this: The candidate must pledge to maintain a web site where open discussion can take place, and must pledge to respond (somehow!) to queries posted openly in a certain area of that site.
There are problems with this, yes. The obvious one is that the volume of queries would be too high to handle — but how do candidates handle emails at present? This would just be providing another channel for electronic communication, but one where everyone could see what others had said — and might opt, instead of sending much the same message over again, to simply endorse what was said before. Software (free software!) exists to handle this.
Another option would be to have a small staff dedicated specifically to responding on the web site. Probably a combination of the two would be ideal.
If this seems worth looking at, I can try to develop a more detailed proposal for a system we would like to see candidates adopt.
If anyone is unsure what the benefits of this would be (and why it could/should be a game-changer), just poke me.
lenny Says:
Cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel.
Che Guevara
lenny Says:
By the way, I voted for Cynthia McKinney and have gotten happier by the day that I did.
ZicaTanka Says:
@Sibel: Maybe we could talk Coleen Rowley into running as an independent, instead of a D, as she did in 2006. I don’t know her stance on election/ballot access reform, but she’s definitely shown herself to be a truth teller.
@lenny: It was nice to have to struggle between McKinney and Nader. I really like them both.
Ishmael Says:
I offer KSAN reporter Scoop Nisker’s famous byline quote:
“If you don’t like the News, go out and make some of your own.”
woozle Says:
Another idea, for anyone who still doesn’t like the idea of choosing our own alternative candidate and then voting unanimously for whoever wins our internal vote: how about spreading the idea of a major party boycott? “We don’t care who you vote for, just don’t vote Republican OR Democrat.”
SanderO Says:
here are the top ten corporate doners for Barack Obama. Take a gander at these enormous sums of money going back only to 2006:
Lawyers/Law Firms $45,518,596
Retired $43,735,259
Education $23,459,325
Misc Business $16,668,854
Securities & Investment $15,983,457
Health Professionals $12,093,433
Business Services $12,008,416
Democratic/Liberal $11,229,581
Real Estate $11,036,591
TV/Movies/Music $9,265,115
SanderO Says:
@ Sibel
I suggest that “we” only support non main party candidates in all cases.
We need to break the control of the two party system.
We need to exact a pledge of self imposed term limits and their introduction and support of public finance.
We demand transparency must be a main agenda.
We need litmus tests of main isues
Pogo Says:
Sibel, While I share your frustration, I have long ago come to terms with the apparent slowness of change in politics. Our democracy is like a large stone which masses of people are trying to push in different directions. It may not seem like much, but if you can move the center-of-mass two inches, it is a great victory. Although it may seem as if the unseen powers-that-be have prevented any real movement, what you don’t see–being they are invisible–is how much that small shift has caused those powers to scramble for new footing. I am heartened that this administration gives no base of support to those who openly advocate torture. I am relieved that Dick Cheney is nattering from the fringes rather than giving military commands from the White House bunker.
Although the causes you cited are in our spotlight, ask anyone who is involved with government at the nuts-and-bolts level, and they will tell you it is like night and day compared to the previous crew.
Given our present electoral design, the strategy of supporting the most viable candidate who will move the country in a desirable direction, is, in fact, the best strategy, and no amount of wishing will change that. Before the 2000 election, Michael Moore was invited to speak at a Florida college on behalf of Nader. He later realized the invitation had been arranged by Jeb Bush. Some evils are, indeed, worse than others.
What has been holding back Obama–and all progressive-minded pols–is the monopoly stranglehold on our media by right-wing oligarchs and shadowy security services. Politicians live and die by the media, and it keeps them terrorized.
We must knock many more holes in that monopoly, and let in more daylight–as BF helps to do. But we also need more unfettered mainstream outlets–radio, TV, and print.
The only hope for even faster change is to somehow expose the corruption, murder, and false-flag treachery that has been going on in our terror-and-security industry. For that, we must all close ranks together and demand proper investigations–no matter what differences there may be in our individual bets as to what those investigations might turn up.
woozle Says:
I agree with Pogo that media consolidation is at the core of the problem with the mainstream media.
Does anyone know if there is any rational justification for allowing:
(1) any single entity (individual or corporation) to own more than one broadcast outlet (TV or radio)?
(2) any entity to operate a broadcast outlet for profit?
Normally I wouldn’t approve of such restrictions, but the airwaves are common property and should be used for the common good. We’ve tried loosening restrictions, and the results have been ghastly; time to go the other way.
woozle Says:
…and I meant to say: doing something about media consolidation is one of the first things any non-lizard candidate should look at.
Of course, we’re stuck in a big of a chicken-and-egg situation where it’s going to be very difficult to get a non-lizard in office as long as our national nervous system is controlled by lizards.
ZicaTanka Says:
I agree with Pogo about the MSM and proper investigations into treachery.
But, as far as VUI goes, I’d suggest that we all need to stop letting the game play us, and simply vote for our favorite candidate. Again, most of the people I meet want to vote for a non D/R candidate. So why don’t they? Because it’s not only the MSM saying they’re not viable – it’s those same people I talk to! It’s only logical that each of us needs to stop helping the MSM corner us. That integrity will take us a long way. We need to be persistent and have a backbone when we vote.
woozle Says:
@ ZicaTanka: The last time we had a president who was neither a Democrat nor a Republican was 1865 — Andrew Johnson — and he only rode into office as Lincoln’s VP. The last time a non D/R president was actually elected was 1950 — Millard Fillmore, of the Whig Party.
People have been talking about the need for an independent candidate to win the presidency for as long as I can remember — at least since 1980. We had a strong contender then, John Anderson — an established Republican running as an independent — and he still only got 7% of the vote.
Wikipedia adds this: “Anderson’s finish was still the best showing for a third party candidate since George Wallace’s 14% in 1968, and the sixth best for any such candidate in the 20th century (trailing Theodore Roosevelt’s 27% in 1912, Robert LaFollette’s 17% in 1924, Wallace, and Ross Perot’s 19% and 8% in 1992 and 1996, respectively).”
My point is this: we can’t just do the same old thing, the same old Campaigning for Who We Really Believe In — much less just Voting For Who We Really Believe In — and expect something different to happen. We need new ideas, something that will change the game — or else we are, as you say, just letting the game play us.
If that’s what you were saying, then I agree — but it sounded to me like you were arguing that we should just vote for who we like, and never mind how the system is set up. Going by that logic, Lucy Van Pelt will pull the football away again and again.
woozle Says:
Ack! I hope it’s obvious I meant 1850 for Millard Fillmore. I was *thinking* 18 as I typed…
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@ Woozle & Zica Tanka: Don’t forget the congressional race. Nov 2010 is next…
hatchcar Says:
Sibel, when asked about candidates meeting the requirements you ask, may I give the name Adam Kokesh. He’s a form United States Marine, who went to Iraq, and now is 100% opposed to the war, and wants to bring the troops home.
I think he would be a good person to make the readers here at the Boiling Frog learn more about.
RJ Harris from Oklahoma would be another person I can think of that might be a good person to learn more of as well.
I’m sure if you do a search on either one of these gentlemen, you will be able to find them.
Thanks for your kind words. BTW, I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything either, but then again, I think it would be terribly boring if 2 people agreed 100% of the time.
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle: Thanks for the response. I’d like you to understand that my opinion is that the most basic and integral aspect of the freedom to vote is that of a person choosing the candidate with whome they agree the most.
New ideas – Yes! But, let’s not forget about the concept of reinventing the wheel. What we also need is persistence.
I have a few questions for you:
What is success and what has it been for those alternative attempts you mentioned?
How about setting a new record?
Did the internet exist on any of the dates you mentioned?
I think we’re on the frontier of the time when Lucy will not only take the football away from Charlie before he kicks it, but then fakes a hand-off and runs it in for a touch down
@Sibel: Thanks for the reminder. I’m wondering what you think of my suggestion about Ms. Rowley and also some points to consider (from many commenters here) in identifying some stars to introduce.
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle: p.s. (Yes, the internet did exist in 1992 and 1996, but I think it was a couple years later before I could find [my favorite beer].com. In other words, whoa, dude, like wow.)
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle: p.p.s. (My favorite beer in 1998 was Old Milwaukee.)
Sibel Edmonds Says:
@Hatchcar: Thank you; I’ll check both. War is one of the top items on the list: civil liberties, Foreign Policy, Lobby & Campaign Finance…all among top items.
woozle Says:
@ZicaTanka:
“I’d like you to understand that my opinion is that the most basic and integral aspect of the freedom to vote is that of a person choosing the candidate with whome they agree the most.”
I’m not sure what you think I’m proposing, but I’m not suggesting any coercion to vote any particular way. That’s probably illegal anyhow. I’m proposing that people simply verbally agree in advance — nothing legally-binding — to officially vote for the candidate who wins an online referendum (to choose a non-D/R candidate), regardless of whether that candidate was their favorite.
I will refine this a little bit and add that if anyone feels that the process by which winner was chosen was in any way corrupted, they should still feel free to vote however they wish — although it would seem reasonable to ask for an explanation and evidence. I’m thinking that any “rules” would be enforced solely by social feedback (e.g. shaming anyone who breaks the “rules” without a good reason), not by any material sanctions.
However, you raise a good point when you say “Did the internet exist on any of the dates you mentioned?” Technically it did exist in 1992 and 1996 (I started my online store in 1995), but obviously it was nothing like the political forum it is today.
I extrapolate from this that you are suggesting it should be possible to organize sufficient opposition to overcome the national D/R bias without extracting any verbal promises from anyone. This may be true, and eventually it probably will be. I just hope it will come soon enough; I fear that the powers-that-be will soon recognize the true threat the internet represents to them — and our window of opportunity may close abruptly when they figure this out, and push through legislation to “fix” the “problem”.
How far do you think we would be able to get if, say, major internet providers were allowed to restrict access to any web site they disagreed with? This has already been tried several times, and although there is a counter-movement to stop it, it’s not clear to me who is winning… and as contributors to this blog have pointed out, they already get away with arbitrarily filtering email. Putting the numbers together (i.e. adding in Comcast, which has been seen to take similar actions in the past) I estimate that at least 24% of the US — including Washington DC — is already walled off behind similar filters which are not accountable to anyone.
“What is success?” It comes in stages: electing a president who actually represents the people; getting a non-lizard majority in Congress; getting rid of some of the horrid rule-changes of the last decade or three… shall I go on? It’s a good question, and I could probably write a whole essay about it.
I’m not worried about reinventing the wheel; if what we’re talking about is representative govenment, I think the wheel needs to be re-examined very closely so we understand how it works.
woozle Says:
A couple of addenda:
1. Somewhere in the stages of “success” is “rebuilding civilization on foundations of sanity”, followed by “making genuine forward progress that doesn’t leave anyone behind involuntarily”.
2. As far as reinventing the wheel, I should have added that sometimes it’s better not to start with what you’ve already done when you’re rewriting things from scratch. (This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t learn from history but that we should feel free to try things which haven’t been tried before, especially if they now seem “obvious” — just “reinventing the wheel”. We should not feel constrained by the decisions of the past, if they don’t seem like good decisions in the light of subsequent experience.)
This is certainly true in software design, and well-designed government often strikes me as being very similar to a large multi-user enterprise software package. Some of those, even ones that companies will pay millions for and depend heavily upon, are very badly written indeed. Such software generally gets the job done, much like the sausage-factory we now have for government, but at a true cost that is difficult to measure because of how fundamentally it affects the way we do things.
Pogo Says:
@Sibel Woozle has made some good observations.
On VUI, The idea of “Vote your conscience, and let the system be damned” is a perennial favorite that keeps being re-invented, like perpetual motion and the Martingale Gambling system. But, like those systems, it is based on an illusion, and you always end up losing more than you gain.
The first illusion is that there are some wonderful candidates out there that everybody loves, but we never vote for them because we think they can’t win. In fact, there are fifty wonderful candidates–one for each tiny slice of the electoral spectrum, and each could get 1/50th of the vote. The primary system allows each of us to vote for whatever crazy candidate we want, including highly unlikely ones such as Dennis Kucinich or some wacky black guy named Barack Obama. Those who insist on clinging to their heart’s desire in the general election simply leave to the rest of us the work of moving that center-of-mass the further 2 inches in the desired direction.
But even if there were some way of causing your favorite fringe candidate to win, it would be immoral. Why? Because we live in a democracy, which means that the winner will necessarily occupy a point not too far from the center-of-consciousness of the country. Where is the center-of-consciousness today? Somewhere to the right of Barack Obama’s.
This is not surprising. If you drive coast-to-coast, you will be bombarded by nonstop far-right radio noise. The Monopoly Media is relentless. Very seldom will you come across a show like Air America–and even that network will self-censor on certain key issues.
There is nothing wrong with the constitutional design of our electoral system–as far as the voting part goes. What is wrong is a controlled monopolized media, the corruption of money in the process, and various kinds of cheating and manipulation, such as with black-box voting computers. (One of the issues that Air America was afraid to go near in the past.)
We must focus our attention on these issues, where each effort registers and gives us slight progress–not toward a naive counterproductive strategy that splinters and weakens the small amount of political effect each voter does have.
ZicaTanka Says:
@woozle:
Part of my last comment was in response to your comment:
My point is this: we can’t just do the same old thing, the same old Campaigning for Who We Really Believe In — much less just Voting For Who We Really Believe In — and expect something different to happen. We need new ideas, something that will change the game — or else we are, as you say, just letting the game play us.
I don’t think people have been campaigning nor voting for “Who They Really Believe In”. It has been “Who They Are Told To Believe In”. And that’s the wheel I didn’t want re-created. I have a problem with the majority running away from their conscience while parroting the non-viability messages they are fed.
I’m all for creative uses of existing tools and building new ones. And I share your concern about net neutrality. I like your attitude about trying new things and I’ll keep looking into your project at your site.
ZicaTanka Says:
@Pogo:
“But even if there were some way of causing your favorite fringe candidate to win, it would be immoral. Why? Because we live in a democracy, which means that the winner will necessarily occupy a point not too far from the center-of-consciousness of the country.”
If the fringe wins, it’s not the fringe. The problem we have now is that the real fringe, the super rich establishment, has convinced the commoners that they are the fringe.
“Where is the center-of-consciousness today? Somewhere to the right of Barack Obama’s.”
Who told you that?
ZicaTanka Says:
@Pogo:
“Where is the center-of-consciousness today? Somewhere to the right of Barack Obama’s.”
I understand that your opinion came from the right-wing radio and media you were mentioning. And you’re right that has a huge effect on consciousness.
I think there’s a deeper consciousness involved. We need a spark to wake up the snoring. It’s the “deep state” vs. “deep consciousness” battle.
hatchcar Says:
I see comments are still being taken here. I wish to ask those who participate in this blog a simple question. Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000 asked this question of all the voters.
“Would you being willing to give up your favorite government program if it meant you never had to pay income tax again?”
A great majority of people derive not only their income and livelihood from governmetn largess, but there’s a large segment of the population who love control and power, and will do anything to maintain that power and control.
Myself, I seek zero control over anyone, and that includes people in foreign lands. Of course, it’s not to say that there are control freaks in those countries as well, but this government with it’s militaristic campaigns only creates more of these control freaks, but builds consensus for them in those countries.
Yes, part of the problem is the people we put in Congress, however, not to look at each other in the mirror and ask who’s to blame, and dismiss that the people are part of the problem I think is quite naive!!
Full Disclosure: I’m a 25 year employee of the Postal Service, which derives it’s existence totally from the government monopoly on mail service. I’ve long advocated ending the monopoly, and letting the Postal Service compete head on with FedEX and UPS and all others in the field. So, as you see, I speak from a hypocritical position. As I’ve said to Sibel many times, I have nothing to hide here.
woozle Says:
@ hatchcar: several responses…
1. If you had asked me that question several years ago when I was earning a decent income, I think I would have said something like “I can’t really tell you, because I don’t know what my favorite government program is; could you suggest some examples or give me a list to choose from?”
…and then I would have gone on to add that my problem with income tax wasn’t so much having to surrender a portion of my “hard-earned income” (which was made possible in part by “government services” such as interstate highways, the internet, regulation of interstate banking, etc.) as it is the complexity of figuring out how much the government thinks I owe them, at the risk of severe penalties if I happen to get the wrong answer while doing their math for them, and the uncertainty of not being able to quickly calculate how much of a given raise I might receive would be swallowed up in tax-bracket increases (in order to answer questions like “is it really worth working an extra 10 or 20 hours this week, even if I do get time-and-a-half? or will it just get swallowed up in taxes?).
Income tax should be calculated via a simple formula, and the minimum income to which it applies should be as high as possible — i.e. only as low as needed to meet whatever expenses it is needed to meet. (…which is in itself a big question; I’ve heard that income tax does not actually go to pay for any services, but actually just pays the interest on the national debt — can anyone confirm this? And where does the funding for those services actually come from, if this is the case?)
2. The choice implied by your question is not really an accurate representation of reality, unless we find that income tax really only provides funding for approximately one major government program.
3. Another problem with that question is that it frames the decision entirely in terms of personal benefit; I think most people understand that many government programs — and social welfare in general — is intended to spread risk across society, so that nobody has to deal with catastrophic situations unaided. If we do not do this, it costs society as a whole.
4. I agree that forced taxation is an odious solution at best, and I would like to see some kind of system which is solely enforced by more social means (e.g. boycotts of businesses which didn’t pay their voluntary taxes) — but we need an informational infrastructure to support this kind of thing before it could possibly be effective.
Those who would abolish compulsory income tax would do well to investigate exactly what income tax funds are currently used for (and publish in detail, with sources) and suggest viable alternatives if needed.
Also, aren’t USPS and FedEx allowed to deliver letters now? The only monopoly the USPS has, as far as I am aware, is the right to access people’s mailboxes — and I don’t see how they could enforce that monopoly if I were to put a sticker on my mailbox saying “UPS authorized for full access”.
5. To the extend that “the people are part of the problem”, I do not think it is because of inherent selfishness or some other vice; I think it is pretty clear that the opinions of a large chunk of the US population are being heavily manipulated by the way the issues are presented in the mainstream media — and that, in turn, is because the mainstream media are far too centrally-controlled. The worst crime you could accuse the majority of is “credulity” — something which has been heavily trained into them by various means. I highly recommend this essay (which I may have picked up here, because at the moment I can’t remember where I got it), on that subject.
We have in effect allowed a small group of people to take control of our national nervous system — the means by which we used to reach something approaching national consensus on vital issues.
I submit that fixing this situation should be a top priority for anyone trying to set America back on a track to sanity.
hatchcar Says:
First and foremost, the idea of an income tax should be appauling to any rational person. The idea that someone else makes the decision of how to spends one’s money first before the person earning the money gets to make any decision is replusive to what the founding principles of this country are.
Can you guess in this scenerio what % control the government has in making this important decision? I’ll wait for your answer.
Secondly, you are correct that indeed the Grace Commission stated in it’s final report in the early 80′s that indeed, 100% of the money collected in income tax pays for the interest expense on the national debt. Bondholders, (many of them foreigns) get the money first.
The Federal Reserve with it’s funny money operations make up the difference, and this is the main reason why we are in the mess we are currently suffering. ( I would highly reccomend reading the Austrian School of Economics theory on the Business Cycle, and on Money and Credit)
Yes, it frames the decision soley on personal benefit. Who should benefit from one’s labor? Don’t you think that the “person” may have a family to support as well? Or maybe he or she would like to start a business, or give it to charities, or make alot of decisions on their own without someone else making it for them? This collective mindset also needs to end. Don’t think for a moment I’m trying to be a selfish jerk.
You don’t think for a moment with increasing one’s wealth there are side benefits to it. Sure, some people may hoard it, but how many people out there give to charities, not only their money but their time and talents to improve other lives. I get the feeling you’re selling people short when it comes to the idea that we can’t care for others.
As far as the essay, the author touched on 2 very important points, and those are the public schools and the media. Both have failed in their missions, and they also need to be scrapped. Here’s a great alternative to the media that Sibel has presented to us, and such things as homeschooling, and even some of the Christian and Catholic schools have provided a far better alternative to the public schools. (Forced complusory taxation to fund the schools should end).
Fed Ex can only deliver “letters” if they are more than $3 dollars more than what a first class letter would cost, or twice as much if it is sent by priority. Note, USPS offers a service where they do the paperwork and FedEx does the leg work. Also, USPS uses Fed Ex planes to load and ship first class and prioirity mail. Fed Ex has thousands of boxes in front of USPS retail window units. UPS delievers packages to USPS retail window offices on a daily basis. For those who fear privitization of the mails is going to hurt the Post Office, hmm, it’s already here!!!
The Feds should operate on 1/10th of what they currently spend now. The Consitution, before the 16th Amendment was passed, used the process of taxing the states based on the how many people lived there, and apprioationed that amount. Seems that would be a better system than what we have now. What do you think???
And finally, what’s this “Risk” business, and “spreading risk” among the society? Forcing people to help others in need maybe a worth while goal, but it’s tyranny, and morally replusive.
Finally, I wasn’t taking about a specific program per se. The point is who is better at spending one’s own money. Yourself, or in this case, the government? That’s the point!!!!!