Lena,

I understand about how you feel about politics. I consider it a very low reality aspect of this VR, so many lies. I depended upon the apparent incompetence of all parties and they typically obliged by blocking each others efforts between the parties and the president. They were so frequently do nothing because they could not get their act together that the country did better because they couldn't organize and no one was in control. The Republicans have always been more oriented to voting as a block. They are now putting together a formula largely based upon lies and deception mostly effective against the so called low information voters. This is a combination of anti taxation slogans with disinformation implying that higher taxes on the rich would reduce the number of jobs available and the propaganda of the Christian fundamentalist right wing with their simplistic approach to reality. This kind of thinking appeals to those voters. If everyone else who can understand on a better level does not get out the vote against ideologues, what the Tea Party represents with all their new congressional members and presidential candidates, the country will next be ruled by an ideologue prepared to remake the country based upon their ideology no matter what it means in terms of destroyed lives. They want to get rid of social services except for the bare minimum. There are plenty of bridges for the poor to live under in their ideology. That means the end of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment payments and help for the disabled of all kinds. It will make for cheaper employees and the resulting deaths will just make more for those still living from their viewpoint. That is a repeat of the thinking of the NAZIS who wanted to purge society of those they considered defective. Compare Bachman's or Perry's ideas to the NAZIS for instance.

Ted

Ted,
I agree with all you've posted here.Your comparisons to NAZI thinking is not hyperbole,in fact it is more than accurate.Elements of wall street,big business and wealthy industrialists actually supported the NAZI movement in Germany AND the U.S. -in addition to the eugenics movement and the little known attempted overthrow of FDR. These monsters have never really quit it seems.....

I am pretty sure that if there is a collapse of this, once great society, that there will be plenty of "profitable" opportunities. Profitability may not be the kind of profit we are used to seeking. Difficult times have a way of bringing out the best as well as the worst in people. We will all get a chance to find out who, or what we really are. And our intestinal fortitude will be measured with plenty of "Special High Intensity Training" and our ability to "live gracefully with uncertainty" will be tested.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I was really struck by this comment of Ted's. I have gotten to the point where I do not like to listen to the news because I get upset. I have frequently found myself railing against "them." But then I remembered hearing Tom say over and over that the world is the way it is because it is a reflection of "us." And then I began to look at myself and ask myself what have I done lately to make this world a better place, politically, and I saw I have done precious little. So I joined a political organization I like and began writing letters expressing my views. I feel better if I'm doing something to improve things, however small.

P.S. When I try and anticipate what will happen this decade, I think politics may become overshadowed by physics--climate change. Recently, I had to cancel a trip to Vermont because of flooding. Serious flooding is taking place in New York and Pennsylvania right now and heavy rains are predicted for the weekend. At the rate we're going the land that Ted has squirreled away up river may soon become valuable oceanfront property and then who will have time for politics?

Flooding from a hurricane or tropical storm won't make it so. If all the Arctic and Antartic ice melted, that would happen and sea level reach that high in a few decades.

This illustrates, flooding from a hurricane as happened in Louisiana with that really big one that was not adequately prepared for or as recently in the NorthEast of the country, one of the fallacies to the ideologues such as the Tea Baggers who want absolutely minimal federal government. Their ideas are to take us back to state government as the primary government with the federal government doing nothing that was not covered in the original Constitution. Believe it or not, this has been said to be the proper level of government according to the right wingers. This would bring us to the point that something like the coordinated weather forecasting that provides all the warnings about such storms would not occur. Any recover resources would be limited to the states and what they could individually do. It isn't in the Constitution for the feds to do this kind of thing. Each state would have to regulate industry individually, with the desirable result to those wanting this governmental change, such regulation would be absolutely minimal if existing at all. All of those questions of product safety and food safety would simply disappear in the sense that the regulations would disappear with the power of the government reduced. The aviation industry would become essentially unregulated. Everything would become a matter of caveat emptor. Each state would be stuck making its own policy regarding trade with China or Europe or whatever. We would become a federation of individual sovereign states again. The big corporations would become the de facto government as the only large organizations operating across all the states and actually they act world wide in many cases. Some big corporations have more income and assets than many whole countries. And the federal courts have given them the rights of individuals to engage in politics with the result that to become a national level politician requires billions of dollars to get your own message out and submission to the demands of those who provide this money.

Not that the federal government has done everything it does well and properly, but imagine going back to the serious government occurring at the state level again in a world where we would have to deal with a resurgent Russia plus China and India as countries and Europe as a unified entity as it now is. State resources for any state would be overwhelmed and totally inadequate to deal with it. Bottom line is we need a better functioning federal government, not one reduced in its functioning.

Ted

Ted,
You are hitting the nail on the head! The baggers are selective about 'State's Rights' though.The thing is that they are actually for interstate commerce as long as corporations can set up in the state with the least regulations- a race to the bottom it is.Hypocrites.

The amazing thing is that the low information voters do not stop to consider-even for a moment- what it is that they are supporting.Common sense can tell you that,for instance,States can't have their own immigration policies,have their own foreign policies and declare wars,and they can't have their own air and water standards,etc, without effecting other States.How can they believe in globalism and 'freetrade' but not a common interstate road system within their own nation?Also, they do not seem to get that it is federal standards that keep them from being killed by contaminated food and untested drugs. ( Though this is less true today due to the fact that they have allowed the FDA to become run by lobbyists and corporate board members.)

Here is a humourous but prophetic clip from the old movie "In God We Trust" that kind of sums much of it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_74-VwW88E

What did you guys think of Obama's jobs proposal? I have to say it sounds like more of the same stuff he has been doing already that has already failed more than once. I'm not liking how polititians are so vague about what they plan to do exactly and expect everyone to just be on board before they hear what's in the bills. I don't like Obama's tactics of blaming the repubs before they even vote on the bill or get to see what exactly he proposes and how he plans to do it. Like I heard someone say after the speech, if he wants to work together so much then why is it his way or the highway? Why not work together with the repubs to write the bill in the first place if he is trying to take the stance of bipartisanship? Who says more spending will work this time, and why would it; how? Too much empty talk for me. I feel the same way about all the republican presidential canidates, except Ron Paul.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Obama has supposedly planned out his strategy around things which previously had bipartisan support, thus leaving the Republicans in the awkward position of having to be against something which they were previously for. They, and particularly the Republican presidential candidates, were basically making it clear before he even made the speech that no matter what he proposed, it would not work as they planned to be 'against it' and totally uncooperative no matter what he proposed just because he proposed it. This is about Obama's only option because the Republican strategy is based upon voting no regardless of the consequences. If it takes down the country, it begins to look like it fits their plans to get Obama out of office as a 1 term president no matter what. It is not said in public but it is a common idea amongst the "low information voters" that he is a few shades too dark in skin color for them ever to be accepting of him as President.

Ted

Playing the race card? I didn't expect that from you. He did imply that some of the proposals were things rebups supported in the past, It's a good strategy, but we still don't even know what those things are or what extra requirments go side by side with them. I am pretty skeptical about dumping more money into the economy into more of the types of things we already tried that didn't work out too well. Our country is broke right now and if the things we put money into don't end up helping then we just added that much more to our debt.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

It has become clear (at least to me) that the problems that we face (as a nation of people) can not, and will not be solved by a fair and impartial election. It has already been established that the "powers that be" will never leave the fate of the country up to the will of the people. The "masses" are only good for "cannon fodder" and taxation. Things will get better, but like the old hippie guru said to me years ago: "they will probably get worse before they get better".

There will be opportunities to change the course of events, but much will depend on changing the awareness of the masses. In order to combat the mass anger and hate that seems prevalent in America today LOVE, compassion, and forgiveness will be required. The media dis-information machine has done an efficient job of stirring up mass FEAR, ANGER, and HATE. And as we know already, you cannot defeat anger with anger. You can only defeat anger with love

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Don't forget that taking the trouble to vote and on an informed basis enters into that equation as well. Changing the thinking of the electorate is much more than a one year job. Better to wake up those who can think well now, get their heads on straight and get their lazy asses into the voting booths as required. I also hear that there are some signs of a popular move to 'throw the rascals out'. I will try to look into that and would appreciate any help in that direction.

Ted

The problem with "throwing the rascals out" is...

Well, here. Here in Montana, some time ago, the people referendummed in term limits. The result has been that anyone with experience that knows how to get things done has to leave, while the fresh idealistic newbs are as ignorant as cowpies... easy game for lobbyists and PR guys (who often come from the ranks of now-retired politicians that need to earn a living and now how the systems works.)

I think that Obama did have some high hopes for change. Then there was a day, after his election was decided, when he went to visit the white house for his first briefing. He came out the door visibly shaken. Try remote viewing the scene that occurred there that day.

I'm Not trying to throw a wet rag on your aspirations Ted.

-Montana

They will not manage on a substantial scale to 'throw the rascals out', never fear. I fully recognize the value of experience. But it never hurts to throw the fear of God into a politician by telling him/her that a vast number of his/her constituents want him out for the crappy job he has been doing. Keeps them on their toes, aware of who pays their salary and why they are there in the first place. Are you aware of the obscene pension levels those clowns pull down after just a few years of service? Not to mention working later as shyster lobbyists themselves or for big corporations that swill at the public trough since they know the tricks and where many of the bodies are buried. They can really twist those arms and get what is wanted for whoever pays them to shill for them. We aren't talking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington here. We are talking politicians at the highest level who know how to slip their hand in the till and never have the drawer closed on it. Have you ever heard of a politician who failed to multiply his net worth by many times in the course of his political career? Only if they don't stay around long enough to find out where the bodies are buried and the secrets of being a shill. A little fear is good for them.

Ted

If you want to put the fear of god in a politician, you first have to remember what gods they turn to. Then: Criticize their clothes, or their hair, or the style of delivery, etc, etc. A successful politician in this society is only marginally, cosmetically concerned with ethics, social issues, "content".

Just my (frumpian cynical) opinion.

-Montana