Jim's Article On The Koch Brothers

An interesting article by Jim DiEugenio on the Koch brothers.

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/14/the-back-story-of-citizen-koch/

Another fascinating article by Jim.

And it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of people who tout the Libertarians as being a viable third party against the other two corporate-fed bodies we usually hear about.

Yes, the Libertarians are as bad as the other two... meaning: in American elections, we are not really given much of any sort of choice.

So sad.

terlin wrote:Another fascinating article by Jim.

And it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of people who tout the Libertarians as being a viable third party against the other two corporate-fed bodies we usually hear about.

Yes, the Libertarians are as bad as the other two... meaning: in American elections, we are not really given much of any sort of choice.

So sad.

Hi terlin - I have to disagree with your next-to-the-last sentence.

It hasn't come down to that yet.

YES it is true that the candidates are "selected for us", and YES it is true that both major political parties are nothing more than money mills at this point - and YES it is true that most on both sides would kill their own mothers for a little power -

But, that thing about the elections, is not accurate.

What IS accurate, is that many Americans have become like a bunch of sheep, willing to swallow any and all of the media drivel without questioning it. (If the media says there's a crisis in Podunk, then there is).

It is not accurate that we don't have a choice. It IS accurate that we're not using it.

What do you think would happen, if in next year's election, 62% of the country decided to vote for the Green Party candidate, instead of one of the majors?

Erm... perhaps I should rephrase that a little less delicately - how long do you think such a Green Party President could remain in office?

Thirty days?

Ninety, even?

Gee, just think, maybe we could rewind the tape and play it again (only, this time we have Androids and  iPhones).  

nonsqtr wrote:

terlin wrote:Another fascinating article by Jim.

And it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of people who tout the Libertarians as being a viable third party against the other two corporate-fed bodies we usually hear about.

Yes, the Libertarians are as bad as the other two... meaning: in American elections, we are not really given much of any sort of choice.

So sad.

Hi terlin - I have to disagree with your next-to-the-last sentence.

It hasn't come down to that yet.

YES it is true that the candidates are "selected for us", and YES it is true that both major political parties are nothing more than money mills at this point - and YES it is true that most on both sides would kill their own mothers for a little power -

But, that thing about the elections, is not accurate.

What IS accurate, is that many Americans have become like a bunch of sheep, willing to swallow any and all of the media drivel without questioning it. (If the media says there's a crisis in Podunk, then there is).

It is not accurate that we don't have a choice. It IS accurate that we're not using it.

What do you think would happen, if in next year's election, 62% of the country decided to vote for the Green Party candidate, instead of one of the majors?

Erm... perhaps I should rephrase that a little less delicately - how long do you think such a Green Party President could remain in office?

Thirty days?

Ninety, even?

Gee, just think, maybe we could rewind the tape and play it again (only, this time we have Androids and  iPhones).  

Perhaps things are a little different where you are but in Northern Virginia there is rarely anything but the R & D on any ballot. Every so often you see an L or I, but in 90% of the races I see, there is no choice but R or D. And that is what I was talking about when I said we had no choice.

Now if we could get s plethora of parties running in all these elections we would sure stand a better shot at recapturing something akin to democracy.

terlin wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:

terlin wrote:Another fascinating article by Jim.

And it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of people who tout the Libertarians as being a viable third party against the other two corporate-fed bodies we usually hear about.

Yes, the Libertarians are as bad as the other two... meaning: in American elections, we are not really given much of any sort of choice.

So sad.

Hi terlin - I have to disagree with your next-to-the-last sentence.

It hasn't come down to that yet.

YES it is true that the candidates are "selected for us", and YES it is true that both major political parties are nothing more than money mills at this point - and YES it is true that most on both sides would kill their own mothers for a little power -

But, that thing about the elections, is not accurate.

What IS accurate, is that many Americans have become like a bunch of sheep, willing to swallow any and all of the media drivel without questioning it. (If the media says there's a crisis in Podunk, then there is).

It is not accurate that we don't have a choice. It IS accurate that we're not using it.

What do you think would happen, if in next year's election, 62% of the country decided to vote for the Green Party candidate, instead of one of the majors?

Erm... perhaps I should rephrase that a little less delicately - how long do you think such a Green Party President could remain in office?

Thirty days?

Ninety, even?

Gee, just think, maybe we could rewind the tape and play it again (only, this time we have Androids and  iPhones).  

Perhaps things are a little different where you are but in Northern Virginia there is rarely anything but the R & D on any ballot. Every so often you see an L or I, but in 90% of the races I see, there is no choice but R or D. And that is what I was talking about when I said we had no choice.

Now if we could get s plethora of parties running in all these elections we would sure stand a better shot at recapturing something akin to democracy.

What are the two excuses we hear all the time, for why people vote for R or D?

1. Don't want to waste my vote
2. Those guys are dangerous, can't let 'em win (so we gotta go with the other big guy, to make sure the big guy we hate loses)

My own personal take is that our government LONG ago adopted a "corporate" view to all this - I mean, if you look at Goldman or Oracle or E-Bay or any of those, they give the same amount to the D's as they do to the R's. They're playing both sides against the middle - and they don't care which one wins! This year they get satisfaction on one set of issues, next year maybe the parties switch and they get a little different emphasis (but they're still giving money, so they're still getting satisfaction).

Our government is the same way - they keep accumulating more and more powers to themselves (all of which are COMPLETELY un-Constitutional and WAY out of scope), and it really doesn't matter whether the D's or the R's are in office this week, all they have to do is wait patiently and keep gathering the crumbs.

What DOESN'T help, in my opinion, is when we get a bunch of BRAIN DEAD MORONS on the Supreme Court, like we have now. This Court is absolutely one of the worst (if not "the" worst) Court we've ever had. They've completely abandoned Constitutional principles and they're ruling largely on the basis of political expediency - and that is DEADLY for a democracy that depends on checks and balances.

And I mean.... more generally..... Free speech zones?  "Are you fucking kidding me"? ???    

I've traced this BS all the way back to the Reconstruction. (That's when most of the evil un-Constitutional stuff started, right then). Example: the Slaughterhouse Cases, which still today form the legal basis for municipal government stealing monopolies from the People and "licensing them back" so they can get a few hundred quid per pop - Southern Pacific v Santa Clara County which forms the basis for the legal concept of the "corporate person" (and I mean, THOSE fuckers have way more rights than REAL people do!) - all of the above, and not even to mention the National Currency Act which was the first time banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral. Lincoln wasn't a hero, he completely screwed up the country!  

nonsqtr wrote:I've traced this BS all the way back to the Reconstruction. (That's when most of the evil un-Constitutional stuff started, right then). Example: the Slaughterhouse Cases, which still today form the legal basis for municipal government stealing monopolies from the People and "licensing them back" so they can get a few hundred quid per pop - Southern Pacific v Santa Clara County which forms the basis for the legal concept of the "corporate person" (and I mean, THOSE fuckers have way more rights than REAL people do!) - all of the above, and not even to mention the National Currency Act which was the first time banks were allowed to accept promissory notes as collateral. Lincoln wasn't a hero, he completely screwed up the country!  

Yes, it was begun even before the Reconstruction. The Rail Barons are the tip of the iceberg and their main guy - Lincoln - they put into the White House.

Lincoln is famous for freeing the slaves but what he really did was enslave the states. In the Civil War we saw the 17th Massaschusetts, the 31st New York, the 22nd Pennsylvania... all gone after the war. The moment he destroyed the state's right to exist on its own, as a sovereign, he made each state a slave of the Federal.

Lincoln wasn't a hero although he certainly is mythologized into being one!

(of course, it did not really start with Lincoln either... it keeps going back, and back... History - the gift that keeps on giving. Oh, don't get me started!!)

[and I had to log in three times to get this posted... what I always do with long posts is write them elsewhere and just paste them here     ]