Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
“Mike, don’t take this the wrong way, and I reread your piece again just to make sure. I don’t mean to be insulting but it is, for lack of a better term, rather sophmoric on one hand and wrong in its core conclusion on the other, that the transcendental problem to it all is “the influence of wealth upon our political system.”
1zb1,
Please do take this the wrong way because I mean to be insulting. You’ve recently made many comments here, certainly enough to judge your political stance and your overall personality. My judgment is that you are an elitist, pompous ass, with deep seated insecurity. You tend to discuss with invective and to make refutations based on non-sequitur answers to the points you dispute. There is an air of smugness about you in that you really believe that you are smarter than everyone, when the reality is that your forensic skills are mere diatribes and assertions. As to the elitism I claim for you:
“I say to you the problem is less about money in politics as it is about ignorance of the people. I call it a willful ignorance because people go out of their way not know the facts or consider new ideas. To paraphrase, “its the people stupid”.”
By this statement it is clear that you see yourself above those grubby people, looking down upon them benignly, but with a revulsion at their inability to think like you.
“In any event, to say it is all due to money, or even money’s influence on the political system is both mistaken and counter to the Constitution.”
Given its role as a refutation of my point this is a sublimely stupid statement in an attempt to demolish a straw man of your own creation. Who precisely said that the use of money in politics is approved of in the Constitution? Oh yes it was SCOTUS in a ruling I clearly dispute. However, don’t let that deter you because your presence here is not about discussion, but about a lame attempt to prove how prescient you are. Some might ascribe prescience to you, were it not for the fact that you clearly have a glaring inability to perform the simplest tasks of reading comprehension and a tendency to see what is clearly not there.
“The tparty was about money, the Civil War was about money… big surprise, how many things aren’t about money”
The only way to describe the above is asinine. My point is, you ninny, that every major (and minor) problem facing this country is due to the malevolent influence of money upon politics. You admit it is true, but you do so in refutation of what? The Citizens United case establishing corporate person-hood was in effect the legitimization of the corruption of our country. This is the issue from which all others devolve. However, you’re really not interested in that, nor are your really interested in re-electing the President. The election is clearly subsumed in your overweening ego and the need to feel smart.
That is true for a fact, since you’ve come onto the scene here, you’ve been far more interested in picking fights, rather than getting votes. You pick fights too in a rather smarmy, patronizing manner which clearly indicates to me what an insecure wretch you are.
Now unlike you I don’t start with the premise that I am all wise, I could be mistaken about your intentions. It would also be a logical possibility that you are little more than a conservative troll, claiming support for Obama and then being so obnoxious about it that you actually diminish support. A stupid strategy to be sure, but based o your writing I would think stupidity of tactics would be a option for you.
Finally, you have really begun to bore me and you add little to the conversation. That being the case hang around and spread all the nonsense you want, I’m not playing anymore. You are a waste of time.
Oh Mike, did your little diatribe help you feel better? I hope so. Didn’t actually say much other then once again you prove with all your “analytical gifts” you are a poor judge of character – or should I say no judge at all.
Lets see if I get this straight: as near as I can tell I am the only one here who unapologetically supports Obama but because I “pick fights” with everyone else I must really be a troll? That makes good sense 😉 You mean to say you and everyone else (apparently you speak for everyone else) are so weak minded that because I don’t curtsy when you, Mr. Turly (his argument on the recess appointment was embarrassing) or anyone else cares to share their brilliance with us you are going to not vote for Obama.
Of course you and most others who find it good fun to dissect him everyway you can, or in many cases suggest that Ron Paul is an alternative, are not at fault but my clumsy little challenges, (as you put) will cause people not to vote for him. Boy what a sorry lot you all must be if Mike is right on that.
Come, come, Mike, your feelings where hurt. I didn’t bow down to your brilliant insights into the human condition and of course that great insight of yours that “money in politics” is the root of all evil. And you really don’t think that is sophomoric (heartfelt but still sophomoric)?
Sorry to hurt your feelings. Sorry to hear you are so weak in mind that you might not vote for Obama because you don’t like my tone.
In any event, as for being elitist – in other words according to you, I am the one who thinks everyone else is too stupid to get it instead of you and everyone else thinking I am too stupid to get it because I do support Obama. To that charge, I stand convicted. I accept that I am slightly less stupid then a lot of people even if that makes me a lots stupider then many people.
Let me turn to AMS for a moment: You said, “So yeah maybe we were deceived.” You saw what you wanted to see even when all the facts were put right in front of you but you call that “deceived”? Face it, many of you deceived yourself. Your anger should be with yourself. Take responsibility. And also don’t be so disappointed. The guy you got has actually gotten a good amount of the things done that he promised. Who knows if he gets reelected and takes back the house he might get even more things done that you like even if you don’t like them all.
As for the ‘Golden Age” thing, I seem to be having a problem getting a straight answer from anyone. Just let me know one of those periods when “civil liberties” were better off. Personally, I don’t think you can name one. That doesn’t mean there arn’t things to fix, but it does mean haveing some realistic perspective based on reality instead of hyperbole.
As for my example, i did not try in any way to create a metaphor or analogy. In this day and age I am not going to argue what constitutes an “imminent threat” (unless you want to). Assume if you like that the plan to nuke your home town was still days away from actual happening but you only had this one chance to get the guy (or gale) to stop it from happening. What I am most interested in is if there is any circumstance at all when killing an American Citizen by the president is 1) Justifiable; and 2) Constitutional even when the question of immanency (and what is meant in the constitution) is unclear.
Back to MIKE:
I beleive many issues are far more complex then many people acknowledge (including me). Whenever I read a Judges ruling – even ones I disagree with – I am often in awe of their reasoning, and usually their brevity. Just loved Judge Jones opinion on intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
It deeply offends me in Citizens United the RIGHT WING APPOINTED COURT has somehow managed to give more rights to corporations then citizens. It is a perversion in everyway of the very notion of democracy and the constitution. Yet at the same time I can certainly understand that we are treading on complicated ground when it comes to also protecting the right to “free speech”. We can spend more time on this later, but I think we can all appreciate that there are potentially conflicting rights. Not to mention that the ruling also impacts on Unions and other organizations similar rights.
The point being that money and political speech and free speech are not quite so clear cut and obvious in their reality as they may appear in their theory.
Mike thinks money is the root of all political evil. But as I pointed out the founders were well aware of the influence of money. They were also concerned about the ignorance of the people (even if Mike thinks I’m an elitist for saying so).
All of you (or should I say many of you) think the way to fix the money problem is to, well, fix the money problem. You are willing to attack one right of one group (ie corporations, unions, trade groups, non profits) for the sake of another right (isn’t that the way it always is – my important right is more important then your important right?)
But if I’m correct and the real problem is not money but “ignorance” – in the form of people making uninformed choices based on who spends the most money, might a better (or at least an alternative) approach to limiting money could be INFORMATION and EDUCATION. Effective information, widely disseminated would make money superfluous. Instead of just who runs the most attack ads with the most screaming its about who has the facts on their side.
What if people tuned into the POLITICAL CHANNEL like they do to the financial and sports channel to compare actual facts. I don’t mean the talking heads kind of politics or the FOX MAKE BELIEVE NEWS CHANNEL, or the talking points kind of interviews, but real facts in clear side by side comparisons. (I realize there are bits and pieces of this, ie the OMB, or Fact check or many other sources of relatively objective information that people usually don’t pay attention to.)
What I’m talking about is fight money with information. You can’t buy votes with money based on misinformation if people make it a part of their lives to get the facts. Special Interest Groups will stop spending money on political advertising only when people stop paying attention to the advertising. Bottom line this isn’t a money problem – its an information, education, and people problem.
Right now people don’t want to know the facts – will full ignorance. Even AMS didn’t entirely disagree with me on that. When we make it easier to see the truth then it is to see what we already want to hear money won’t matter.
Side note: the same kind of ignorance applies to our health issues: we are eating ourselves to death based on food addiction and manipulative marketing… but thats for another time
1zb1,
You are too full of yourself to understand anyone but yourself. As for you affecting my vote that was your really stupid interpretation of what I wrote. Here’s the difference between you and me. I’m a real person, using my real name, who publicly stated long ago that I would vote for Obama. you are merely a pseudonym who gets off on the attack without substance.
That’s why you don’t even realize that a good many here have also stated the will vote for the President, because you pre-judgments don’t allow you to take in or even understand what others are communicating. You are really having a debate with yourself, in the persona of who you believe are your opponents and you called Tony C. schizophrenic? BTW your use of schizophrenia showed a lack of knowledge of mental health in its’ incorrect usage.
“In any event, as for being elitist – in other words according to you, I am the one who thinks everyone else is too stupid to get it instead of you and everyone else thinking I am too stupid to get it because I do support Obama.”
No you’re the one that thinks everyone else is stupid because you wrote it:
“I say to you the problem is less about money in politics as it is about ignorance of the people. I call it a willful ignorance because people go out of their way not know the facts or consider new ideas. To paraphrase, “its the people stupid”.”
As for everyone else thinking you’re crazy for supporting Obama, actually as I said quite a few here do support Obama, your tunnel vision leaves you unable to see that. However, agreeing to vote for Obama doesn’t necessarily entail total approval of him, just a choice informed by one’s distaste for the alternative. You present yourself and preen yourself as being politically sophisticated, but your need to feed your debilitated ego, makes you just another schmuck, starved for attention and willing to get if even if it is negative. I’m glad to be of service to your insecurity.
“Even AMS didn’t entirely disagree with me on that.”
I think you should re-read AMS’ comment, like with others you’ve got it wrong.
“What I’m talking about is fight money with information.”
I can see you only go for the “really big ideas”. How pray tell does the information get disseminated when the media is owned by the very people who don’t want information disseminated? Oops, we’re back to money again. Interestingly, you keep wanting to put the blame on the people and their ignorance.
“You are willing to attack one right of one group (ie corporations, unions, trade groups, non profits) for the sake of another right (isn’t that the way it always is – my important right is more important then your important right?)”
First it is interesting to see you as a defender of corporate rights, why it’s almost as if…….they were people. Corporations are legal fictions allowed by the State and as such they don’t have the right to corrupt our political process. However, not being as simplistic(and elitist) as you my propositions are quite different then what your febrile brain imagines.
Eliminate the concept of corporate person hood.
Require the media to broadcast political debates and give candidates air time..
Return the teaching of civics to the schools.
Limit lobbying and limit campaign contributions.
That would be a start. I’m just putting that out there btw for the record, since you lack the capacity to comprehend anything you haven’t thought of, but without the hope that your ego besotted pseudonymous persona can comprehend it.
Jill,
“Obama doesn’t need saving, our nation does.”
I don’t think there is a candidate running for president who could save this nation–especially when one takes into consideration the state of the other two branches of our government at the present time.
Mike, don’t take this the wrong way, and I reread your piece again just to make sure. I don’t mean to be insulting but it is, for lack of a better term, rather sophmoric on one hand and wrong in its core conclusion on the other, that the transcendental problem to it all is “the influence of wealth upon our political system.”
No doubt there are people who just woke up from their 1950’s form of idyllic white middle class growing up who may need to be reminded that the world is made up of things other then white picket fences. But most people have at least a vague understanding of the fact that the world is not a perfect place and filled with horrible hunger, sickness, poverty, injustice, and cruelty.
In any event, to say it is all due to money, or even money’s influence on the political system is both mistaken and counter to the Constitution. You may not like but the drafters of constitution were as concerned about the people abusing power as they were of any other part of government. We don’t often think about it this way but the Checks and Balances approach – Senate, House, Executive, Judiciary – also included the “people”. In other words there were really 4 branches of government. And the founders weren’t really very trusting of any of them. On the superficial level, the Senate was supposed to be a check on the House (in theory representing the people more closely) but while the branches of government got to vote regularly on matters, the people still had a vote on those matters every 2 years.
I say to you the problem is less about money in politics as it is about ignorance of the people. I call it a willful ignorance because people go out of their way not know the facts or consider new ideas. To paraphrase, “its the people stupid”.
Perhaps a rereading of Federalist One is in order For example:.
“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
(the opening of Fed 1 specifically addresses money so it is really an old story. The tparty was about money, the Civil War was about money… big surprise, how many things aren’t about money)
Never before in history has so much information and knowledge been so easily available for anyone wanting to be informed. Yet on so many fronts we act in ways counter to our own well being, the well being of the nation, the world, and the planet.
Ignorance is bliss so we should have a really happy country.
Jill,
I think you are wrong. Having people employed is better than having them on the service rolls of government. If employment is not an issue you care about, then why do you bother to vote?
Jill, Things seem to be getting a little better but the doomsayers don’t want that to be the case. Do you really think Obama favors the elite more than Romney? That seems to be the choice.
S.M.
The title of your article shows just how screwed up the priorities of partisans and the elites who are served by them really are. The problem is not the reelection of a corrupt president, it is the myriad suffering imposed by the elites, sanctioned by their supporters, on the population at large.
Obama doesn’t need saving, our nation does.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/economy-might-save-obama-after-all.html
It ain’t over.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/its_a_good_thing_obama_saved_t031808.php Actually, I think the fact that the government intervened on behalf of the auto industry was a good thing.
Mike,
Great post. I can’t agree more to your conclusions. Just like Deep Throat said during Watergate, “follow the money”. With unlimited, secret cash flowing into campaigns, the vast majority of people will not be served or represented. Maybe the OWS movement is a small start in holding the money accountable for our problems.
Great article, most of the big gov’t problems the US faces are because of gov’t intervention into the economy, LRC.com, mises.org are great resources on all of these topics both of which I read almost daily.
Obama’s policies (protecting torturers, military commissions, dirty wars, Iranian “axis of evil” antagonism, warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention, extrajudicial assasination, etc.) are in keeping with the neocon agenda.
There will be no real political process in this country until we come to terms with what happened under the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, Congress is unlikely to investigate because they would reveal their own complicity (it was Nancy Pelosi that took impeachment “off the table”). The judiciary is unlikely to investigate because they’re complicit right up to the Supreme Court that installed Bush in office. And the executive is unlikely to investigate because Obama seems content to continue Bush-era policies.
Voting behavior has a minimal impact on policy in large part because it is primarily a means of legitimating the power structure that both parties rely on for their influence. Leadership is not a viable means to enact social change because belief in leadership is itself a tool used to enforce conformity. Conformists don’t bring about social change.
An alternative to 3rd party voting, which is often denigrated as “throwing your vote away” is to use voting as a means to coordinate the attitudes of the disaffected — that is, to use the existing electoral system for a purpose other than installing an individual in office. Such an alternate use of voting would be to vote for yourself as a write in candidate coupled with the advocacy of such a tactic.
The purpose of such a voting tactic is manifold:
1. Focuses on individual initiative rather than rely on some external organization for efficacy
2. If enough people participate, will create a spectacle that the media can’t spin.
3. Lets disaffected voters know how many others like them are out there — a pre-requisite for more organized behavior
4. Vote for what you believe in rather than against what you fear
5. Non-violent
6. Inexpensive
7. Able to distinguish the angry of the apathetic
If a prospective participant is afraid of appealing mostly to disaffected democrats, and fears this might tip the election in the favor of a republican, then, first and foremost, advocacy of this tactic should be directed towards non-voters. Also, keep in mind another way of interpreting how close our elections have become:
In 2000, the Florida recount was triggered by statute because less than 0.5% of votes separated Bush from Gore. If you deny that the election was rigged, you must then accept that an election settled by less than the statistical margin of error by definition says nothing about voter preference. An election so close might as well be settled by chance.
A statistically-significant degree of participation in such an action would be 5% of the popular vote, as this is what is required for federal election matching funds. This could be the youth vote. The purpose is to create a numerical “black hole” that the nation will have to examine, both in terms of voter preferences and with respect to the integrity of the voting system overall.
If you’re like most voters, then you believe polarization is a problem in contemporary American politics. Voting for Democrats and Republicans (read: more polarization) is unlikely to help things much. At some point, you’re going to have to take just a little bit of a risk and change your behavior.
Castrate the ones in power….after a generation they will not breed….Some say Castro is or was a threat….In hind sight….did he not take the more honest approach….
“What I asked for is a “WHEN”.”
“I personally don’t believe that the Constitution has been completely honored, or followed, since its institution. There is no “Golden Age” of Constitutional rule that we can look back on and say that we have eroded from that time.”
1zb1,
That was my answer to your “When?”.
Everyone, sorry for that one last comment. I’m out of here to the gym.
So Mike, when you say there was no golden age then the word “eroded” would not be accurate since there is nothing to compare it to that was better. In fact, for some groups they might say it has never been better (ie ending DODT).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/bain-barack-and-jobs.html?src=me&ref=general There is going to be a lot of attention paid to the good jobs that Bain destroyed.
“In the dark of early morning, I am haunted by the prospect of the new Dark Age washing over the land, all the while knowing that others are rejoicing.”
Kathleen,
I share your dread and worry for my children and grandchildren.
Everyone,
I’ve intruded enough into this discussion, I’m going to sit back and learn from your own viewpoints.
“Is the problem too much wealth influencing government, or a government with too much power over society in the first place?
I’d say the latter.”
Puzzling,
This is the source of much of the political disagreement between you and I.