Mt,
 
I think what Shell picks up on is not so much that you support the liberal Dems (I don't find that at all), but that somewhere in your heart you still believe, if the liberals could just get the right people in office, everything would be fine: the Post office wouldn't be broke and you would get the same service you've come to expect; Social Security wouldn't be a ponzi scheme and it would live up to it publicized goals; social welfare wouldn't be the corrupt way for the poor to simply simply cannibalize themselves; gov't health care would actually take care of people instead of just providing more subtle ways for pharmaceutical and insurance companies to steal . . . If we could only get the right liberals instead of the corrupt ones we have.
 
No doubt, there people who have similar beliefs about conservatives. If we could just elect the right people . . . the ones who agree with me.
 
In my view, both groups are misguided. The people in office are not inherently corrupt but you will never have anything but a corrupt gov't. The paradox is solved in knowing that the system of gov't and politics inherently makes the people in office (elected or otherwise) corrupt or stupid (I don't honestly know which).
 
I don't know that it can or will happen, but if we could all unite under the Golden Rule as the law of the land, the terms liberal and conservative would be meaningless and there would be little need for a system that makes people corrupt or stupid.
 
M

Viewed from a distance the foibles of our Leaders and shortcomings of the whole-(Govt.)-are not hard to objectively analyze and criticize, for inherently, in our hearts we all know what's right vs wrong.
 
Even those that exhibit the most promise, in having the "most" right answers to problems while campaigning, seem to quickly reveal the "nature" of the political beast within, once he has joined his co-horts under the Govt. tent.
 
Is this the inherent influence of the system or the underlying nature of those who seek political office--read>"power"??. I'm sure a bit of both but cannot assay the true weight of all influences. Be it Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, Socialism or "Our"-(by far the prime choice)-Democracy, all seem prone to these negative underlying traits.
 
In my observation, the smaller the social group involved, the less pronounced--(but not eliminated)-the negatives are. So Pacific Islands and Himalayan Cults/tribes seem the best insulated. Maybe when the Leaders are your neighbors, you all know the true beast--or--he never dares reveal himself--??.  
 
Now, where do we go from here??. A Ron Paul Presidency, with a like minded Legislature and a replacement of the "Entrenched" Bureaucracy-??. A far fetched dream, since He's been Branded "Political Maverick and boat tipper", from the first day he opened his mouth and criticized the Old Palace Guard.
 
Quote Fuzz:"While I like your analogy that "gov't and politics inherently makes the people in office (elected or otherwise) corrupt or stupid," I think it is simply repetitions of thought patterns that cause those participants to drift to low performance."
 
Sounds like another way of saying the same thing. Looks like we're just preaching the the Choir here.

Quote from Hairydawg on Mar 10^th, 2010, 9:37am:

HD,
 
All of what you say is undoubtedly true. But it doesn't help us much in the pursuit of a real, sustainable solution.
 
Patterns of thought? Sure. But exactly how did those patterns form?
 
The answer is the culture. Those patterns exist in the populous as well as the "leaders" -- how else would the "leaders" get to be leaders? Promising people something they didn't' want, something they thought up in a vacuum?
 
Cultural thought, those patterns you discuss, are themselves assumptions (unexamined, unquestioned and self-concealed) or the effect of those assumption.
 
If there is a process of ratiocination that will yield a solution it would be the process of carefully and methodically examining (not necessarily changing) cultural assumptions.
 
Ah, but that means looking at our own assumptions -- something we are all loath to do. I mean, most of us question the assumptions of others, whether they be analysts, religious zealots or bigots, liberals . . . but we hardly ever confront our own except under very extreme stress or pressure.
 
I haven't any idea how the process of sort of communally (with no sharp objects in hand) examining our collective assumptions would proceed. Think about getting together in a group. Say you invite Bill O' Reilly, his liberal counter part on some other network, a Suni terrorist,  a Buddhist Roshi, maybe a hard core Christian fundamentalist . . . and you say, "folks, we are going to examine our cultural assumptions". Most would probably deny they even make assumptions.
 
None of this is so cynical as to say assumptions are bad. In fact, they are absolutely necessary for thought and life as human beings. It is just that many of them are just wrong. And, I beleive from my own personal expreience that if we but examine our assumptions, the solutions, the changes, will simply appear. After all, we are all human beings and our real needs are all approximately the same (unless assumptions get in the way)
 
What I think is true out all this is that the cultural process of thought (and assumption making) is a loop (as you might be fond of saying). But it is a loop we are rarely aware of and it has no starting place, no initial cause to adjust. We think, we act, then our thoughts get are modified, then we act again, may be in a slightly different way -- and we are never aware of this ongoing process.
 
What I know is that there are two possibilities: 1) we (and "leaders") will continue to think-act-think loop (probably, the circular patterns you describe) in a rather haphazard way -- just like we always have. Or, 2) we will somehow learn to consciously examine our assumptions. From  the latter, I assume things will get better.
 
M

The Lies of "Conservatism" and the "Center" are Immoral
 
There once was a somewhat principled -- even if selfish and objectionable -- movement in America called Conservatism. But that is no more: as much a victim of the public relations-named "Reagan Revolution" as are America's middle and working class and the once robust economy of the United States.
 
The modern "conservative" movement is nothing more than a massively funded and highly effective communications strategy to shift America into an oligarchy that functions for the super wealthy through tax cuts and for corporations through the elimination of safety regulations for the public good and the privatization of government.
 
That's not conservatism; that's highway robbery. It's a crime.
 
All this came about through the organized strategy and financing of wealthy financiers and corporations to build a network of think tanks, media-owned outlets, reporters toting the oligarchy line on the "benefits" of unrestrained "free trade," public relations initiatives, and front organizations to move America from an evolutionary society relying on the strength of innovation and a dynamic educated middle class to a relatively static society in which those at the top are in a members-only club growing obese with wealth while kicking others down from the ladder to the top and demanding tithes from them.
 
The most vital cudgel used to achieve this economic and social imbalance that stultifies the American nation and is immoral to its founding principles is the notion of "centrism." It is beat into us by Republican and Democratic politicians (Rahm Emanuel and the White House being current exemplars), the corporate mainstream media, and, of course, the relentlessly effective GOP echo chamber.
 
What is "centrism" other than an artificial metaphor, given that America is confronting so many issues and that the vast majority of society wants to move forward, not backward. What most Americans want is not static "centrism," but movement ahead. That is the conundrum that corporate journalism, subject to the goals of its owners can't explain: how a society that allegedly is "conservative" is fed up with the gridlock in Washington that won't produce change.
 
After all, so called "Conservatism" is the opposite of progress. It is moving backwards instead of forwards. The world, however, doesn't stop -- and the immoral assertion of "centrism" as the trope that politicians use to stifle America's advancement is allowing other nations like China, India and a United Europe to catapult past us.
 
To prevent the continued development of a prosperous society that benefits more than a privileged few, the GOP developed a massive propaganda machine of everything from think tanks, to publishing houses, to "stalking horses" in whom they invested -- like General Electric and some California plutocrats did in Ronald Reagan. The Republicans lured -- primarily through television and radio -- millions of financially threatened working and out of work Americans through fear and scapegoating to blame liberals and alien "hordes" for their plight instead of the global corporations who were stealing their jobs and shipping them offshore in the middle of the night.
 
Then the corporate media and timid Democrats in D.C., who get their share of corporate pay-offs to do the bidding of companies loyal now only to gross profiteering and risk taking and not to the U.S., created the notion that somehow all this pollster labeling of political positions indicated that we were a "centrist" nation as if it were some sort of marker you could find in a corn field in Kansas. The profound problem for the ruling elites in D.C. and their corporate mainstream cohorts is that when you ask Americans on individual issues what their preferences are, they lean decidedly toward government involvement in advancing the interests and achievement of the nation.
 
America prided itself on breaking away from the fixed and stultifying inherited upper class rule of Europe, only now to have an interest group with such massive amounts of funds to create a "natural order" of winners and losers; in essence, to reverse the American Revolution.
 
That's not "centrist" or "conservative"; it is immoral, even treasonous.
 
Ask the South American nations who threw off governments that the U.S. supported because they were, in essence, subsidiaries of American corporations. Now, the majority of South America is ruled by populist leaders responsive to the needs of their people before the needs of wealthy magnates and U.S. companies that span the globe.
 
Ask the people of the Iberian Peninsula who long ago threw off dictatorships and elected populist governments.
 
No, the "center" is what "we the people" make of it and what true leaders can mold in the way of vision and persuasion. It evolves; it mutates; at its best it reaches for our highest aspirations, but it takes inspiration, understandable language, and the strength to vanquish with hope the fears evoked by demagogues.
 
The created fiction of the "center" is used as an excuse for inaction on behalf of America's obscenely wealthy interests.
 
If you look at how phony the concept is, just think what the Republicans did with a post World War II society that saw most of America (with the exception of minorities) move forward and the development of a broad middle class. The "Reagan Revolution" moved that "center" to the far right, stealing from the working and middle class through completely unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and using propaganda techniques to poison people against government, while giving a free pass to corporations who acted with callous and pre-meditated indifference toward their U.S. workforces and obligations to the common good.
 
The "center" is ever-moving, if only we had the leadership that was unbought to move it toward our aspirations and dreams, and to take advantage of the great skills of the American people, instead of sinking, for instance, our public education system so that the gluttonous rich can fatten themselves up even more as the Republicans shift America's wealth from the middle to the top through manipulation and myths of "the center."
 
By mark karlin
3/09/2010 - 3:47am
http://blog.buzzflash.com/editorblog/303

Quote from mthead on Mar 11^th, 2010, 12:23am:

Mt,
 
No argument from me. In fact, your criticism of conservatives is pretty lightweight compared to mine. But if you examine your assumptions closely you will find that liberals are essentially the same. About the only real difference has to do with the people who support them and who lines up to receive privileges from them.
 
And, I agree, we are not going to do away with gov't any time soon -- maybe never, But that's not the point. We don't need to do away with gov't, we just need to learn to live without it. The key to doing that is cultural: the examining of our collective assumptions. If you think that learning to live without gov't cannot be done, you are simply making an assumption that is not in your own best interest. I guarontee you dat!
 
M

HD,
 
That the gov't might attempt to take over our gardens would not surprise me. But the conclusions of that article are not based on the quoted material or any other evidence given (In fact, it doesn't even give a source for the quote). As far as I can tell the conclusions are pure speculation -- with a bias. Just scare mongering.
 
"Based on this evidence . . . ". What evidence?
 
"What is to stop the government from defining a small home garden as a food facility?" Nothing except the monumental task of monitoring 30 million gardens. C'mon. What would be the point?
 
M

I think that the truly interesting thing here is that what would normally seem unlikely in the extreme or truly unbelievable tends to be believed when the tale concerns 0'Bama or the present lot in DeeCee.  His actions and beliefs as revealed are so bizarre that almost anything, either action or belief, attributed to him is given immediate credence.  And we thought it was bad when the BuSh and Cheney crime team was in charge...
 
I still believe CSPAN is the best comedy channel, though.