Everything Southern Humboldt and more
Democrats have now filed petitions for the recall of four Republicans. The Republicans have now filed against a Democrat (of the 13 who left the state, the Republicans think that Jim Holperin is the most vulnerable). More on both sides may be in the wings.
Where will the Wisconsin voters take this?
Addendum: Signatures filed against a 5th Republican.
 | Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
 | Just Watchin on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| That Other Anonymous on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| That Other Anonymous on Priorities |
| Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| That Other Anonymous on Priorities |
| That Other Anonymous on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Narration on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Narration on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
 | Not A Native on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Narration on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
53 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 20, 2011 at 9:50 am
Joe Blow
How is voting for a plutocratic dictatorial government taking “it” anywhere, but straight to hell?
April 20, 2011 at 9:58 am
Mitch
Joe,
What would you have people do?
April 20, 2011 at 10:09 am
Joe Blow
I should have said oligarchic, plutocratic dictatorial government.
Mitch, Are you serious?
You can do what Mahatma Gandhi suggested: STOP COOPERATING.
April 20, 2011 at 10:18 am
Mitch
I am serious. As I recall, Gandhi did a bit more than stop cooperating. I think if he had stopped cooperating and left it at that, India/Pakistan would still be a British colony.
What would you have us do?
April 20, 2011 at 11:11 am
Joe Blow
If you ever hope to understand “what I would have YOU do” you first MUST actually listen to what I say without prejudgment or superimposing your own beliefs. Or, more to the point, outright rejecting my answer to your question when you clearly don’t understand my answer. What I would have you do is figure out exactly what it means to “STOP COOPERATING.”
April 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Not A Native
I don’t agree with your analysis of dictatorship Joe, but thats not my point here.
Its obvious most US residents(and I include Mitch among them) understand the personal implications of ‘not cooperating’ and find them unacceptable. We comprise 5% of the world’s population and, in aggregate, consume 25% of the utilized resources.
Even most of the people in poverty in the US have a lifestyle that is considered comfortable by working class people elsewhere. So rather than exhorting people to take isolated personal action that you feel is completely within their ability and interests, you might consider unjust inequality in the US to be a collective action problem that has to be addressed though organizing rather than individual action.
April 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm
tra
For folks in Wisconsin, one form of “not cooperating” with politicians who seek to disempower and impoverish them, is organizing recalls of the Republican state senators who voted to gut collective bargaining, and, eventually organizing a recall against the Governor who led that effort.
Meanwhile, one form of “cooperating” with politicians who seek to disempower and impoverish others is to urge others not to bother voting against them.
April 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Mitch
NaN,
“Its obvious most US residents(and I include Mitch among them) understand the personal implications of ‘not cooperating’ and find them unacceptable. “
I’m a wasteful consumer who flies. And I vote. And I pay taxes. So are most of the people I know.
If by “stop cooperating,” Joe means I should stop consuming, stop flying, stop voting, and stop paying taxes, yes I find the personal implications unacceptable.
April 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Joe Blow
Hey, folks. I just gave you a first hand demonstration on what it means to “NOT COOPERATE” and not a one of you understood the meaning. How the hell do figure what you’ve been doing forever is ever going to fundamentally stop what is actually happening in this country? Do any of you understand what is happening in the mid-west with these new emergency manager laws to totally abrogates Democracy – the worthiness of your worthless votes?
You asked the question, Mitch and said you were serious. Turns out you are not.
April 20, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Not A Native
Mitch, I’m thinking what you wrote is what Joe means, but my understandings of Joe’s intents are often wrong
April 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Mitch
OK, Joe. What do you mean by STOP COOPERATING ? I missed your demonstration, unless it consisted of not responding.
April 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Joe Blow
Actually Mitch, you got it.
First, I am NOT trying to “have anyone” DO anything. Therefore, I did not purport to cooperate with the intent of the question, even though it may have seemed a valid question for a serious person. Who am I to tell you what to do?
Mitch said that he thought Gandhi did “more” than “stop cooperating,” but did NOT say what that “more” was. He may have and I’d be interested in know what it was that did not define his intent – to stop cooperating. As such he rejected the validity of my statement on its face to “stop cooperating.” Therefore, NOTHING I said in explanation would stand, as the following comments so show.
How anyone can disagree with the following statement is beyond me, but … facts and beliefs mix about as well as oil and water. The indisputable fact is, a plutocratic oligarchy is running this country. If Obama’s presidency has done nothing else, he has proven that reality. The politicians, those who are Constitutionally authorized to govern, are all proven corrupt, liars – totally owned and compromised and unfit to represent the voters and, in fact they do not.
American Democracy works for the privileged elite. The voters get what they vote for. Someone comes to you and asks you for your vote so he can personally benefit and you trust that person, you get what you deserve. STOP COOPERATING. Go find someone you CAN trust, someone that is a person of integrity, honesty, trust and value. I’m not talking about some blowhard politician that merely says what he is he thinks you want to hear. If you don’t know the difference, then I suggest you do what’s necessary to find out.
April 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Find someone honest. Now why didn’t anyone else think of that?
April 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Not A Native
OK Joe, I’m dubious but I’ll bite once. When I find this person I CAN trust, what do I trust them for/with/about???
April 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm
tra
Joe Blow said: Do any of you understand what is happening in the mid-west with these new emergency manager laws to totally abrogates Democracy – the worthiness of your worthless votes?
Those emergency manager laws and their use is a power-grab by state-level elected officials, including Michigan Governor Rick Snyder. No doubt he was elected in part because of people who stayed home, believing that their votes were “worthless,” and in part because a majority of people who did vote in that election, cast their votes very unwisely. That’s the bad news.
The good news is that both groups of voters will have the opportunity to make up for the mistakes they made in the last election, and “throw the bum out” in a new election. And, just like in Wisconsin, they have the option of forcing a new election sooner rather than later:
Citizens Group Files Petition To Recall Power-Hungry Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/20/rick-snyder-recall/
April 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Meanwhile, the signatures have been filed against a fifth Republican.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/wis-dems-to-file-recall-signatures-against-a-fifth-republican-state-senator.php?ref=fpi
And Kloppenberg wants a recount.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/wis-dems-to-file-recall-signatures-against-a-fifth-republican-state-senator.php?ref=fpi
April 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Plain Jane
Any candidate who strays too far from the corporate line is massacred in the media, and not just from the right. Remember the Dean scream?
April 20, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Plain Jane
There were enough oddities to make a recount reasonable. But someone besides Nickolaus should conduct the recount in Waukesha County
April 20, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Anonymous
You folks need some help. Ever thought about calling each other on the phone since I see the same four or five of you on every blog? Sheesh.
See ya’ll.
April 21, 2011 at 7:10 am
Mitch
I’ve noticed that Anonymous shows up daily on just about every local blog. He should talk!
April 21, 2011 at 7:49 am
Plain Jane
Since I only post regularly on 2 blogs, it’s obviously not me Anonymous is referring to. However, I see Anonymous posting on every blog I read, repeatedly throughout the day, 7 days a week, and it rarely adds anything to the discussion. Apparently it lacks either a phone or friends to call, not surprising really – I wouldn’t give it my phone number either.
April 21, 2011 at 7:54 am
Joe Blow
In plain words, Eric, at heart you are basically dishonest. You actively promote, support, and enforce corruption and its worthless system as do all wannabe privileged elite. You seemed to believe that just because you play the game you somehow have a stake in it. What you fail to realize is that those actually controlling matters are NOT playing any games; certainly not the one you’re in love with.
NAN (Not A Native) asks this brilliant question: “OK Joe, I’m dubious but I’ll bite once. When I find this person I CAN trust, what do I trust them for/with/about???” What the hell are we talking about? CONNECT THE DAMNED DOTS!
So what is it Mitch? You said Gandhi did “more” – I asked you once, what “more” beyond NOT COOPERATING? You put it out, just like Eric does, like some big time authority, BACK IT UP.
I offered two suggestions in response to Mitch’s initial question (What would you have people do?). The response defines WHY the real answer to that question is a moot issue. The plutocratic oligarchy, the Ruling Elite, are moving on Democracy to establish absolute control. Voting in a system where the State Governor, one man or woman, can send in one person to abrogate or terminate a democratically and legally elected governments and school boards is, by definition, call a dictatorship.
So, I again ask: “How is voting for a plutocratic dictatorial government taking “it” anywhere, but straight to hell?”
April 21, 2011 at 9:03 am
Mitch
Joe,
Among other things… he studied to become a lawyer.
He actively recruited Indians as soldiers for the British during WWI, despite his philosophy of non-violence.
He managed a multi-decade international protest movement against the British, willingly risking his life and spending years in jail.
He served as the leader of the Indian National Congress.
All of these things imply that he was actively engaged in politics,
April 21, 2011 at 11:26 am
Joe Blow
Mitch, So he did and so he was. Thanks for the follow-up. None of what you say contradicts his stand on NONCOOPERATION as a means of defeating or fighting arbitrary occupying powers, “politics” or political entities. It is reported that he said there is no way 150,000 British could rule over or control a nation of more than 300 million Indians UNLESS they cooperated.
He was also murdered for saying, advocating and defending his stand on noncooperation as the only successful method of dealing with overwhelming and corrupt power within the Indian government as well.
The reason why you don’t understand or even care to understand despite your assertions of “sincerity” is because you reject the answers to your questions on their face without first trying to understand their meaning and intent. I say that because of this erroneous concluding statement: “All of these things imply that he was actively engaged in politics,” No where do I say that I would have people STOP engaging in politics. Gandhi’s whole issue revolved around occupation and politics.
You assert that his “philosophy of non-violence” and his “multi-decade international protest movement” is somehow different from what I said he advocated: STOP COOPERATING. This is a classic example of why people never learn anything beyond what they think they believe. Not cooperating is the essence of his so-called “non-violent” philosophy. Even Martin Luther King figured that much out.
April 21, 2011 at 11:45 am
Plain Jane
Of course, Gandhi was advocating non-cooperation with foreign occupiers while we are increasingly controlled by the elite of our own country. Not cooperating with the British included spinning and weaving their own cloth and making their own salt while still buying from their fellow citizens. Their lifestyles and economic situation were much more amenable to a non-cooperative movement against the British than ours which are so thoroughly dependent on the corporations which are taking over the country. It’s not impossible to sever relationships with corporations, but would require drastic changes in behavior which most people wouldn’t even consider.
April 21, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Mitch
Joe,
You’ve made some assumptions yourself about what I am saying. I said what I said, and I try to write clearly. His nonviolence was also called non-cooperation; I have no trouble with that.
My impression, which may be wrong, is that you stand ready to condemn anyone who participates in politics. Gandhi, like Mandela, was highly political. Instead of labeling the system too-corrupt-to-deal-with and encouraging people not to vote, he engaged it from both within and without.
April 21, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Joe Blow
Plain Jane, One aspect of this situation I’ve not talked about is the underlying reality that ultimately governs what people will or will not do. It’s not something most people want to even consider let alone contemplate the consequences. I believe their isn’t going to be a choice. A good idea of what I’m talking about is demonstrated in the young people standing up, taking personal responsibility, and telling everyone that controlling them with lies and and iron fists: HEY, I COUNT TOO!
There comes a point, at least for a legitimate individual, that regardless of what is offered it can’t justify the loss – slavery.
April 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Mitch
Joe,
If you don’t object to politics, please name a political leader, a political party, or a political movement that you believe in.
April 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Mitch
I should have added, “active in the United States.”
April 21, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Plain Jane
It seems pretty self evident that it’s easier for people to recognize the bonds applied by a foreign occupier than one they believe to be chosen by the majority of voters, Joe. People wake up a lot faster when their immediate survival is at stake and they have nothing to lose than when they are relatively comfortable sheeple, unalarmed by the declining numbers of their flock until it impacts them, but they too are quickly forgotten by those who survive. How many people do you know who are more concerned with the real state of this country than who is going to win on Dancing with the Friggin Stars?
April 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Plain Jane
Is the World Too Big to Fail? The Contours of Global Order
Noam Chomsky
http://www.truthout.org/world-too-big-fail-contours-global-order/1303369200
April 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Joe Blow
Mitch, My point for using Gandhi’s solution of noncooperation, even though he was politically involved, is because his solution worked to free India from the British occupation. Gandhi, like most people, grew in his understanding, motivations and intent. Not everyone accepted his solutions with open arms either. The issues then and now facing people are relatively the same. The understood lessons of Gandhi are built upon, adapted and utilized if they are to be of any lasting value.
You vote (cooperate with the dominant system) for a plutocratic corrupt oligarchy that is imposing dictatorial rule through the corrupt people you vote in, you are responsible for what you get and what happens. That’s the purpose of voting – personal responsibility for the government (representatives) you want or get. In reality, your actual vote is for the governing oligarchy’s representatives. You do that of your own free will. My point is, you don’t have to. You don’t have to cooperate with the “idea” that voting is your only choice. Gandhi lived in a different time, but the basic, core principles governing the issues are the same.
April 21, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Mitch
Joe,
Turnout for Presidential elections is about half the voting age population. Turnout for Congressional elections is about one third the voting age population.
You may think not voting is non-cooperation. I don’t believe it is understood that way by the oligarchs. I think it is read as evidence that, as long as people have television, video games, food and shelter, they don’t much care about who’s in power.
It does make a difference whether the President is Obama or Bush. I don’t disagree that both operate under severe constraints that make their actions appear more similar than one would expect, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter which of the two forms an administration and populates the government.
You seem very angry. As an angry person myself, I hardly feel that’s unwarranted. But I don’t really understand your point of view. At some point, it seems to me, you have to choose the least worst, if only to slow the rate of damage.
I’m not saying that I shouldn’t do more, or that you shouldn’t do more. But non-cooperation in the form of non-voting does not strike me as a tactic likely to help anyone. Perhaps you think that enough non-cooperation will cause collapse. I don’t, but I also don’t feel the slightest bit of confidence that collapse will lead to anything better.
April 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Joe Blow
Thanks for the link Jane – and the comment. Is the Earth to big to fail? If the believers in this Capitalist Religion have their way, it will. Chomsky sees what’s happening in the Arab world and in America’s mid-west as a “Democracy Uprising.” What’s actually happened doesn’t affirm that conclusion. The way these people arose to the occasion demonstrates a different reality. They stopped cooperating with the belief that they were all just worthless, dog-shit chattel. That their only place in this world was to serve at the feet of their Elite Masters. Oh, and when they’re not doing that they are picking away at one another like a bunch of sadistic chickens in a barnyard.
April 21, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Joe Blow
Mitch, Exactly what did I say to ever give you the idea that I am “angry”?
This statement: “I’m not saying that I shouldn’t do more, or that you shouldn’t do more. But non-cooperation in the form of non-voting does not strike me as a tactic likely to help anyone.” is exactly WHY you will NEVER know or understand anything more than what you just said. As such, you just proved noncooperation works.
First, I am NOT assuming anything when you say I advocate “non-cooperation” IS “in the form of non-voting.” VOTE! Just understand who you REALLY vote for is NOT the person on the ballet.
Second, Obama and Bush are exactly the same. In fact, Obama is, in many respect, for more radical and perverse than Bush. You got doubts about that fact, go read Glenn Greenwald’s articles at Salon.com. He’s documented more damned facts and historical records than I could dream up.
Third, It is totally insulting and impertinent that you could EVER speak for THE Oligarchs. Obviously, what you say is true about people caring who is in power. Not even you know who is actually in power. Otherwise you would never try to defend voting as some sort of solution. To accept some sort of “least worst” is in itself a form of corruption.
Fourth, “cause collapse.” While everyone focuses on the symptoms the disease continues to metastasize. There is a new way showing itself on this Earth. Will it have time to do the job is anyone’s guess. What I do know is that EVERYONE is being led to and involved in a struggle to the death.
Life and knowledge, wisdom and understanding are the direct consequences of life’s experience. Do you think for one minute that what I told you was some hypothetical, mundane dream I conjured up to foist on some unsuspecting, maybe even gullible person like YOU? I offer what I know. Accept it, reject it, cooperate with it, and learn, don’t cooperate and remain the same, it’s all ultimately irrelevant to how much you or I piss in the ocean.
One thing I can say, you do provide a serious, respectable conversation. That I appreciate.
April 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Mitch
Joe,
You seem to be very free with dismissal and insult. Perhaps I misinterpreted that when I said you seem angry.
April 21, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Not A Native
I now place Joe alongside Jeffrey Lytle, self satisfed nonsense intended to cause frustration and evoke anger in others. The only non-cooperation Joe models here is non-cooperation to take part in a meaningful discussion. Next!
April 22, 2011 at 7:13 am
Mitch
For those who might wonder why I believe it is better to have a President Obama than a President Bush, here’s a link worth clicking:
http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/obamas-accomplishments/
I actually believe Joe is right — whether we vote for the Democrat or Republican, we are voting in someone who will represent the interests of the wealthiest. But I also believe that there are huge differences between having a moderate Democrat in office versus having a right-wing (NOT conservative!) Republican.
If a miracle were to take place and a Green were elected, say Nader, it would be all out war in Washington, and I doubt the Green would win much unless they had overwhelming popular support.
First thing that would happen is the stock market would plummet before Nader even took office. Next thing the media would start a chant that the economy was being destroyed just by the threat of Nader’s policies. Nader’s approval ratings would probably take a 20 or 30% hit in weeks, because it’s very hard to survive the scare campaigns the right-wing have perfected. Even if someone like Nader got elected, that stock market plummet would rip into his support and make scare campaigns far scarier.
Remember Clinton and the bond market?
One irony here is that the stock market indices have always struck me primarily as indicators of how much the nation’s work goes to reward capital as opposed to how much the nation’s work goes to reward labor — when the stock market as a whole rises, it means each invested dollar is paid more, meaning labor is paid less. We’re all taught differently in school — we’re taught that profits are higher when productivity increases. But remember, we’re also taught that competition is supposed to bring more competitors into any task that is highly profitable, reducing profits back to a steady state. That means that while individual company stocks might rise when they become more productive, when the market as a whole rises it’s a shift of benefits away from labor. It’s a complete contradiction, but one that we’re not supposed to look at.
Leaders can’t lead until they have followers. If two thirds or more of the country gets fed up enough, that’s when someone will have a shot at implementing real changes. But that means 2/3 of the country getting so fed up that it simply turns off the mainstream media, especially the commercials.
It may seem silly to some, but I believe getting the mainstream media out of Americans’ heads is a much harder task than getting the British to quit India.
April 22, 2011 at 8:43 am
Joe Blow
Time for me to practice what I preach.
April 22, 2011 at 9:59 am
Plain Jane
I agree 100% Mitch. Of course, the media is one of the most powerful political forces in this country, owned and / or controlled by a few huge corporate conglomerates. If you haven’t watched “Orwell Rolls in His Grave,” please do.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1925114769515892401#
April 22, 2011 at 11:14 am
Joe Blow
Mitch, You haven’t been paying attention. For one thing you don’t know what you’re talking about. “Leaders can’t lead until they have followers.” You haven’t got a clue what a “leader” is. Nor have you ever experienced that reality in your life. I say that because in this thread alone you define yourself as follower of your beliefs. All you’re doing is mouthing dreams or ideas you believe are somehow facts. Notice how many times you use the word “believe.” The fact is, you practiced noncooperation with me right from the beginning and look what you’ve learned – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Which is GOOD! When you finally wakeup to the fact that this system you believe in, or at least the idea of it that you are in love with, you will experience a life alter moment. While you and your kind of “believer” and ultimate Dark Age thinker (I use the word advisedly) were lost in your dreams the people you trusted destroyed the value of the dollar. Right now it is nearly worthless. Which makes this whole discussion moot.
And then there’s your last statement – Like Not A Native, totally clueless!
You are like that cancer-ridden person that puts of dealing with all the important things in life because they believe they will live forever, has all the time in the world to live and enjoy life only to go one day for a physical and find out you got only days to live.
April 22, 2011 at 11:29 am
Erasmus
“Media” is the plural of “medium,” so I always write “the media are….” — Using a singular verb reinforces the notion of a monolithic media-system and the consequent manipulation of news and opinion that would accompany it. As a matter of fact, we live in an age of unprecedented access to a variety of news sources: the internet, satellite television, and the global reach of technology all allow us to imbibe information that challenges the stories put out by governments. Do people take advantage of this wealth of knowledge? Of course not — and that’s where the blame lies. Journalism has always been biased, and the implication that things are worse than they were 30 , 50, or 100 years ago is nonsense. Each person interviewed for this film is proof that the media do NOT control our thoughts (otherwise, how could so many independent minds exist?). — Bernie Sanders, as a Socialist, seems to forget that a central tenet of Socialism has long been State monopoly of the press. (Bertrand Russell, in “The Case for Socialism”, writes that “Since publishing will be a State monopoly, it will be easy for the State to exercise an illiberal censorship.” And Russell was not on the far-left side of the Socialist party.) Is Sanders really a Socialist? If he is, what is his remedy for the sins of the fourth estate? Government regulation? — One trembles at the thought.
April 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Mitch
Joe,
I don’t know if you’re aware or not of how “culty” your last comment sounds. That’s meant as an observation, not an accusation.
I have no idea what sort of leader you have in mind. Is it God? A particular representative? Because I’ll take my chances with my fellow Dark Age thinkers before I’ll follow anyone pretending to be either God or a personal sales rep.
April 23, 2011 at 11:22 am
Joe Blow
I had thought to point out for those that don’t know, an “observation” is based upon recognized, self-evident facts, not personal judgments, conclusions or worthless opinions. (FACT: Mitch wrote, “I don’t know if you’re aware or not of how “culty” your last comment sounds.” NOTICE: He offers nothing I said as proof to justify that conclusion. Only incoherent and nonsensical rationale, i.e., “That’s meant as an observation, not an accusation.”) The only “fact” self-evident in Mitch’s personal accusation is his “opinion.” For his “opinion,” what he conjures up in his admittedly “dark,” cloudy and servile little mind to become “fact,” or reality, he must first become some sort of a god – which is what he believes happened to him when I first recognized him.
What mostly Mitch, but others, have said, claimed and asserted on this blog thread would be extremely farcical and hypocritical if it wasn’t mirrored by ardently defending their plutocratic oligarch leader. Today, Glenn Greenwald details why their anarchist and hypocritical conduct is so “serious” a threat to the value of all free-thinking Americans. His conclusions about “only incoherent and nonsensical rationale to justify what they’re doing” says it all.
President Obama speaks on Manning and the rule of law:
“That Obama has to resort to the most brazen hypocrisy and factually confused claims to defend Manning’s treatment should hardly be surprising (and as Politico‘s quoted experts noted, Obama was also deeply confused when he claimed yesterday that he, too, would be breaking the law if he released unauthorized classified information, since the President has the unfettered right to declassify what he wants). Those engaged in purely unjustifiable conduct can, by definition, find only incoherent and nonsensical rationale to justify what they’re doing. The President’s remarks yesterday provide a classic case of how true that is.”
It is the why and how America continues to descend into anarchy and chaos.
My first comment in this thread was this question: “How is voting for a plutocratic dictatorial government taking “it” anywhere, but straight to hell?” It took some doing, but I finally got Mitch, who took issue with me over that question, to put the answer out there for everyone to see, who they really vote for, support, defend and why.
April 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
The BBC is a state-owned broadcaster (I think). Do you think the spectrum of opinions presented on the BBC is narrower than the spectrum of opinions from Fox to MSNBC? I choose them only because they are widely accepted to represent two “extremes.”
European socialism does not conform to whatever rules might once have been laid out for socialism. I would not be for state control over means of expression, but I hardly think the typical European socialist is for that, either.
April 23, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Mitch
And continuing,
I don’t think anyone would suggest that the media control (or, the media controls) everyone’s thoughts. Those who own the society don’t need for the media to control everyone.
But if your framing of issues can ensure that perhaps 30% will vote against their self-interest, you’ve won control of the democracy until vast supermajorities come to agree on where their self-interest lies. I don’t know what percentage of the American population would consider itself “religious right” or “moral majority,” but these people are regularly manipulated into voting against whatever horror-of-the-year is available to be puffed up, whether it be gay marriage or Willie Horton.
We’re seeing polls now that indicate 72% (IIRC) want to see the military budget cut, rather than Medicare or Social Security. But our elected officials don’t act as though they’d better do what that 72% feels or they won’t get reelected. That’s because they know that, on certain issues, the minority viewpoint will always have backing from the people and money that matters, and that when money is on offer, they can always redirect attention or put out lies until the election is over.
The issues that seem to decide elections no longer seem to have anything to do with governing.
April 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Erasmus
Socialism as defined by dictionaries and as longed-for by progressives through most of the 20th century is rarely encountered in its pure form — outside countries like Cuba. The BBC may be state-owned but it is not a monopoly, so the spectrum of opinion it represents need not be very wide. — I applaud anyone who votes against narrow self-interest, even though I would probably disagree with the reasons for doing so. Whether it’s a moneybags voting for FDR and his like or a poor Kansan who values the sanctity of unborn human life (not my cause….) over a pledge to cut military spending and direct the funds to the needy, I say: more power to you. The world has too few voters whose worldview transcends their pocketbook. — I would approach polls with great caution. Most of us love schools, motherhood, clean air, and anything else that affects us like a cute puppy. When the privacy of the voting booth concentrates the mind, a different set of values takes over.
April 23, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, there’s no requirement that socialism represent a monopoly. Only that the state own the means of production.
April 23, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Erasmus
Right:and one thing leads to another…..
April 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Mitch
Erasmus,
I agree with what you say about the world needing voters whose worldview transcends their pocketbook. I don’t believe that’s responsive to what I was saying, though.
As you know, I’m referring to voters who are hoodwinked, not voters who idealistically transcend selfishness.
April 23, 2011 at 9:37 pm
moviedad
Jeez Erasmus, you and yours really own “Socialism” don’t you? It makes it all so perfect: someone is against the corporate press and that person identifies with a more “Socialistic” form of society, and all you need do is pull out something Marx wrote a hundred years ago, or some new writer with a right-wing ideology who defines socialism for the masses. “Oh, didn’t you know, in “Socialism, the “State” owns the press.” Yeah great, what a load. You’re so smart, and yet you’re so dumb. Wow, you mean to tell me you are more complex than just one definition? Imagine that, complexity and diversity, actually existing.
Put away your 80 yr old dictionary with the nifty thesaurus.
April 24, 2011 at 8:30 pm
moviedad
Ok, I apologize for the “dumb” comment. We all know you’re not dumb. I’m just so sick of these arrogant definitions based on the failed models of the last century.
April 25, 2011 at 7:37 am
Erasmus
An “arrogant definition”? It wasn’t yours truly who invented “socialism” or defined it or used it in sentences that every decent library still safeguards. If you and I wish to debate the extent of state ownership of the means of production — and the press is certainly a significant “means” — then I will allow you to define your terms (even if I must accept a definition that doesn’t mesh with older ones). — By the way, what is so outlandish about the State monopolizing the Press? Helen Caldicott has called for the media to be placed under public ownership, and she has a large, devoted following. When I met her, I told her that I didn’t trust the government to control the media (this was in the GW Bush days). Her response? “Get a better government.”