Censorship and the arts

[blansky]

I moved this incredible insight over to the Iraq section.




Michael

 

[bjorke]

Callow, I think the Frontline on Jesus that you missed was this (current) one

Or maybe it was this other news item.

 

[jd callow]

(MR)Callow, I think the Frontline on Jesus that you missed was this (current) one

Or maybe it was this other news item.

I did miss the frontline "Jesus Factor" story, but wil try to catch it on the 20th. The Guardian article is really something.

I got my "Bush/Jesus '04' bumper sticker on order -- That should keep Ashcroft out of my trash bins for week or two.

 

[Jim Chinn]

It is really silly to think that there is a huge or even moderate difference between the two parties. It is all about money and power. Democrats have a habit of suddenly moving to the right of issues when an election draws near or they need the support of certain groups or corporations. Republican cadidiates do the same thing. it is all about catering to the "swing" voters.

Lo and behold, many democrats who have been opposed to censorship in a variety of areas support the increase in FCC fines and regulations on radio and television broadcasters. Nothing like taking a principled stand when the majority of the people favor tightening of the regs.

Democrats can talk up limiting free trade or trying to stop the flow of jobs and capital from the US to overseas. What they know and don't want the people to know is that if there is a demand for a product someone overseas will produce it and the company here that can't control costs will go out of business.

Republicans can support and legislate massive tax cuts, but what they don't go into detail about is that the tax cut will be mostly offset by state and local tax increases on income, services and property.

I have a very hard time believing that Senators such as Ted Kennedy or Jesse Helms (when he was still there) cared as much about the people as they do about keeping thier Senate seats. if any senator reaches out to the other side in even a minute effort at bi-partisanship he is denounced by his colegues and the media. John McCain and certain more conservative dems come to mind.

So it may be fun to think of ourselves as Liberals and Conservatives, and in a very few cases those labels actually mean something. But overall what we think or want really means very little.

 

[blansky]

jdef wrote:

Sometimes I think that we, as a nation would be wiser to just alternate parties with each term

I not sure on this but don't we almost do that now. There are a few exceptions of two terms, but doesn't the pendulum swing pretty much back and forth.

Just asking.



Michael McBlane

 

[Aggie]

Jeff that is exactly the same kind of dogma spouted by many in the classes I took getting a poly sci degree. Lets just package it all in a neat little bundle of words to sound good if you on one side and bad if you are on the other. Neither of the parties has a hold on what is good or fills the needs of the individual. Neither has a hold on what will make you rich. I stopped going the way my family wanted me to go, and decided a politcal life was shit. I've seen the behind the scenes deals and the real rhetoric that the public doesn't hear about. Talk about censorship of information. I've known the coverups that have occured and all the nice platitudes while lying through their teeth. No politics is not this neat little package that you can say this is how it is. It comes down to (not all) a majority of people who get into the political end of running at lest this country feel the power and the greed that can enhance their self image. When someone lets power go to their head, they oft times do not think of the voters that got them there. They think of only their agenda and feed back to the voters what ever they think the voters want to hear. It's the deals that get made it is the power that is earned by longevity in office, it is a whole lot of crap. I wish now I had come forward and had my own aunt take responsibility for actions she was blatantly guilty of. I on the other hand hid and kept my mouth shut since it would hurt the DEMOCRATIC party to have her ousted. No politics is not a nice neat little walk in a pretty little park. It is a dirty filthy backstabbing cruel offensive bundle of lies to keep voters voting for people if they knew the deals would never asscoiate with those people. IT is both sides!

 

[mwtroxell]

The Republican strategy is to back the few with the most power and wealth, and hope that they return the favor at election time, while the Democrats strive to appeal to the masses and hope that one vote really counts. .

I forget who said it but I do remember someone once saying that the two party system is simply a device of gevernment to keep the people at each others throats.

 

[doughowk]

Declaring both sides as crooks is common strategy used to discourage independent voters while relying on core base. Its been most frequently used of late by Republicans in their character asassination campaigns. A conservative congressman few years ago declared he would not run for re-election because 95-99% of his colleagues did not believe what they said. That really doesn't bother me for it means they're open to persuasion from their constituents. What scares me is the true believers - Tom DeLay, George W., John Ashcroft - who believe they're doing the work of god in bringing forth an armageddon ( see bjorke's link above to Guardian article). The right-wing (eg, freepers) and religious fundamentalists are the greatest danger to democracy & freedom in America. They already stole one election ( if the recount in Florida had gone the way the judge appointed to oversee the recount had planned, Gore would be President - a fact largely ignored by US media including so-called "liberal" media); and we're quickly heading towards being just another banana republic ( politically & economically - see Krugman's analysis). Just ordered a new bumper sticker, "One Nation - Under Surveillance".

 

[Jim Chinn]

I am not calling politicians crooks, although there are examples from each party. They are most interested in maintaining there power base and staying in office then looking out for the general good of the people. To do this many will simply put a moistened finger in the air and see which way the wind blows. This is one of Kerry's problems, no real core beliefs that anyone can identify with. That is why it is very difficult for a senator to be elected president. Kerry says that people don't understand how the senate works with regards to his votes. I think people understand only to well. many votes are cast to cover one's ass during an election cycle, or cast in a way that makes the senator look good when the defeat or passage of an issue is certain. This bit Kerry in the behind. Why follow your concscience and vote against the IWR? Everyone else is voting for it. Would'nt want to go against the crowd now would we?

The same thing happens on the Republican side. Dems in the majority and are trying to pass a massive enviromental bill and you have a tough election battle against a pro environmental opponent. Don't worry! We can't defeat it so you just as well vote for it to look pro environment. Will give you cover with the conservatives in your district.

And of course they all conspire to continue the biggest crime against Americans- the massive confiscation of income through the smoke and mirrors of the US tax code. Far more efficient, more equitable more managable would be a flat tax, national sales tax or a VAT. Eliminate all corproate loopholes and tax breaks.

Of course this will never happen. Most power in Washington is derived from using the tax system to punish and reward. To fool people into thinking they are getting some kind of wonderous gift with write offs and deductions and refunds.

And finally, no one should be fooled into thinking the Democrats are not just like republicans when it comes to support of big money. If you look at contributions from donors when PACs were legal you would find substantial money going to both parties from oil companies, pharmaceuticals, banks, insurance companies, "big" tobacco etc. The democrats are in the trial lawyers pockets, the republicans in the doctor's. The insurance company while supporting republicans more, spend millions lobbying dems.

So I have come to the conclusion that most politicians are self-serving, sniveling scumbags.

 

[jrong]

The consensus at the Jesus Seminar was that Jesus did not perform miracles (i.e. he was an ordinary man). Hypotheses past this majority opinion range from Jesus as a fictional character, Jesus as the conglomeration of many ordinary men, Jesus as an ordinary man who walked the life of an apocolyptic visionary, and many more. This Seminar included many Christians.

Ummm, excuse me for being dense, but what does this have to do with the original topic of discussion, or even what Tom Duffy was writing about? Or has this turned into a "Lets bash Christians and other dumb religious folk" kind of thread?

 

[blansky]

jrong:


Sometimes we wander off topic and it either dies on the vine or someone brings it back on topic. Much like real conversations.


Jim68134:

I think what most people and probably I don't really understand is the process of getting bills through. Someone comes up with a bill. He takes it to his buddies and see if it will float. If given the okay or support he presents it in the House or Congress.

Then the bullshit begins. Someone tacks on some stupid amendment that has nothing to do with the intent of the bill. But the only way he will support it is with the amendment attached. Then 50 other fools do the same thing and now the thing is so bogged down with "pork" that the initial bill is costing billions, and everyone's State gets a piece of the pie.

Then someone else amends the bill to take out part of what you initially wanted and fought for, but they have more people on their side therefore it sticks. Now your bill, which you feel passionate about is watered down "porked up" and even you, who initially presented it, can barely recognise it and wonder why you would even vote for it.

That is in my opinion why people's voting records are suspect. Sometimes you can't, in good faith, support all the bullshit attached to the bill, that you have to vote against the initial good idea that was presented.

I don't think these people start out as the crooks that they are, they just slowly become that way. Also they are mostly lawyers. A lawyer is a person who fights for the person that pays them. Makes perfect sense. The trick is don't vote for lawyers.



Michael McBlane

 

[mwtroxell]

I think one thing that really throws alot of people off in discussing politics is that they assume we are a Democracy. We aren't and were never intended to be. We are a Republic. As in "And to the Republic for which it stands....".

 

[blansky]

To a poor immigrant, please define the difference.


Michael

 

[mwtroxell]

Republic: A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth.

Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

 

[mwtroxell]

"Humpty Dumpty was pushed."

The slanderous allegation that Humpty Dumpty was pushed and the unstated suggestion that the parties responsible for said pushing of Humpty Dumpty (which has never been proven for a fact) is a blantant lie. Any furthur spreading of such lies against this administration and its duely appointed agents will be considered to be a direct attack upon this administration and all that it stands for.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Ok Michael,

Most lawyers are self-serving, sniveling scumbags. (Just not the ones that work for me!)

 

[doughowk]

I don't know why its such a revelation that our founding fathers did not trust democracy, and patterned our initial gov't after the Roman Republic model. They were after all members of landed aristocracy or wealthy merchants ( a combination aristocracy/plutocracy). They did not trust women, blacks & large percentage of white males to vote the way they thought we should vote. Only over time have we evolved towards a democracy (2000 election good indication that we aren't there yet). There have been very few true democracies throughout history ( Swiss Cantons). Does Rush Lindberger & the radical right want a return to those good old days of the Roman/US Republic, I suspect so. Out of fear, is the majority willing to allow this to happen, I suspect so (especially since over 40% of the population think they are at or near the top 1% in wealth - talk about stupidity).

 

[mwtroxell]

"I don't know why its such a revelation that our founding fathers did not trust democracy..."

Its no real revelation. But the point is that the Constitution and all the articles that set up our nation were originally drawn up to support a Republic and, as far as I know, have never been ammended to make us a Democray. I would also disagree with the idea that we are moving toward a Democracy. If anything, we are becoming more of a Republic where the aristocracy/corporations/politicians hold all the real power.

 

[blansky]

mxtroxwell wrote

Republic: A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth.

Democracy: Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

Again, as a poor immigrant, could you explain the differences or the nuances of the differences between the two.


Thanks

Michael

 

[clay]

The first (Republican form) is representative democracy. You elect a person to make the laws for you. We call this person a politician, and they are supposed to represent the interests of the group of people who elective body that gave them their position. They are supposed to save the rest of us the time and trouble of voting and deciding every single issue.

The second is a direct democracy. Everyone votes on everything. California style initiatives fall in this category.

-The only form of government worse than a democracy is all the rest.

----Winston Churchill

 

[doughowk]

Republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law. The Latin origin is respublica,or res=wealth + publica. It suggests a governmental unit (nation) wherein a limited citizenship (plutocracy) governs thru representatives.

Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. The idea was espoused by Athenians wherein the people (males - not slaves nor women) enacted laws & initiated actions, and took resposibility for their enforcement/implmentation.

Democracy is human species finest political creation, but it is a struggle to make it work.
A Republic: except for Plato & his aristocratic followers then & now, who would claim rule by the wealthy as mankind's greatest achievement?

 

[blansky]

Pardon my ignorance but I'm having trouble seeing the real differences.

I had always thought that his country as well as Canada, Britain and many other, were a democracy where the people elected people to express our viewpoint in the legislative forum.

As Canada is a parliamentary system, which is probably to easier to decifer, but the differences between the US and Canada are not really that far apart. Or so I thought.

In neither country do the citizens vote for every single bill introduced but we have our representatives do it in our name. We do occasionally have a plebicite, or a referendum where everyone votes on it, but that is relatively rare except in municipal or provincial elections.

Every person I have ever heard including Presidents, and others have always called this country a democracy. So I'm new to this idea that it is not.

If possible please clarify.

Thanks


Michael

 

[David R Munson]

The United States touts itself as the word's greatest democracy. I see it as the world's greatest authoritarian state posing as a democracy. The system we have now is not democratic, despite certain institutions that might suggest otherwise.

I suggest Philip Slater's A Dream Deferred for some interesting reading to this end.

 

[mark]

Here is the way I understand it

The united states is a democratic republic. In theory the best of both worlds. In reality I do not know. As a citizen your vote counts toward the election of your senators and representatives, who are then to act as your voice in matters regarding national concern. The electoral college chooses the president. They are supposed to cast their vote based on the will of the people. I can't remember what decides how many votes a state has but different states carry different weight. In theory the electoral college does not have to cast their vote in the same direction as the people. I can't think of a time when that might have happened.

We are a democracy because our vote elects the people who govern us. We are a republic because the government does not have to ask our permission when something needs to be done. By casting our vote we place trust in that person. At least the majority who elected them trust them.

The founding fathers realized really freaken quick that if anything was going to get done in a timely manner the few should make the dicisions for the majority. But in order to choose the few they instituted the one man one vote. Granted at the time it was one property holding man one vote but being the grumpy and stubborn nation we are the people realized that it was just the few making the dicisions and that is were the push for voting rights for all americans comes about.

Canada, the US, and the UK should look a lot alike because the system is very similar. Though the UK and Canadian parliments are much more enrgetic and fun to watch.

There is my babble

 

[jd callow]

Mark has it pretty much on the nose, the term for our version of democracy is "Representative Democracy" not "Democratic Republic." Although, the US is a republic.