“only when the incompetent political parasites are exposed and dethroned”...did not happen in 2000, 2004, and 2008….at ELECTION time when the incumbent two parties and the corporate corrupt media railroading of red and blue media cemented states were ALLOWED by the public to “rule.”

To dethrone? (IMPEACH BUSH, of course.)

Election time is when the best dethroning happens and a GOOD replacement is proven worthwhile and able to deliver the CHANGE needed to turn around the 89% who believe the country is off track.  Who can put the budget in the black and policies on track?  A candidate who would cut the military budget and put the balance where it belongs, for freedom, peace, and prosperity, and democracy for people, not corporate corruption.

Campaign season is when the dethroners were supposed to get public view.

Nader was DUE the PUBLIC VIEW as VIABLE and WELCOME.

But, the media didn’t want him. Corporate Corrupt media did not want democracy.

They call themselves mainstream and they tell US who WE are, but we are NOT THEM.  They don’t get that message.  So, we post on these internet blogs, but realize it is powerless, yet has to have some influence.

Moving forward with some germane historical insights that had the right value at the time it was offered in France, Jean Jacques Rousseau, “Man was born free, but is everywhere in chains.”

We were born in a country that has a good U.S. Constitution as amended, but Congress gave ILLEGAL POWERS to Bush, and the media let him and them.

Usurption at the ballot box for their voting patterns, certainly was supposed to net CHANGE.

But, the media insisted on INCUMBENTS as if welcome, and the chains are about to happen on January 20th, when the SECOND OFFENDER AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF OFFENSE AGAINST THE U.S. CONSTITUTION intends to lie under oath, obviously.  Obama is declaring UNWANTED WARS against the Constitution and against the will of the people who did not agree to what he wants to do, he is INCOMPETENT as suggested in the lead paragraph.  And, powerhungry without conscience, obviously.

How did we GIVE our freedom at a majority level, to the likes of Obama and Bush?

I DID NOT.

NADER DID NOT.

Those who voted for NADER assumed there was a proper chance his education (Princeton honors in International Policy, A.B. and Harvard Law school, honors, later acclaimed by the Law Review as the “most prestigeous graduate ever produced”, 1976 era limelight acknowledged for his achievements, real success by a principled advocate of earnest justice for Federal proper power…such as the EPA, and FOI, and Auto Safety Act…to name a few…Clean Water, anyone for that?  Clean Air…federal law, anyone for that?  THE MEDIA USED TO LIKE NADER.

What happened?

The media was supposed to be our WATCHDOG.

But, no they are the opposite, and in our faces. 

DEBATES that never happened, and should have happened, and that the two parties are as corrupt as the media—BOTH are EQUALLY against the mainstream public at a very real level.

Free?  Man is free if the U.S. Constitution as amended is upheld, in this country, it does provide democracy and laws to protect justice.

Political justice happens at the ballot box and the bums get voted OUT, not promoted.

Rousseau knew people allow the chains. 

But, the current happening is the need for the voters to demand democracy and force the truth of the SIX not TWO.  Every step, a REQUIRED redo…until JUSTICE is served at the ballot box.

Obama will NOT win.

He is incompetent and corrupt, ideally at a very “elite” level…and IF a MEDIA offers national presentation of SIX on the merits, the truth of democracy might prove the majority CAN CHOOSE WISELY, as Jefferson said, “If we think the people not informed enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them.”

This year, 2009, is not being entered with a proper democracy result.  What “Majority Rule” offered was Obama, if the public really likes corruption, then, yes, that is AMERICA TODAY.

Cyncicism toward the entire human race based on the media red and blue states when 100 million are registered outside the two parties and 62 million IN the two parties, is not a proper evaluation.

The majority who voted did not see the SIX not TWO who were potential Presidentially viable candidates before the voters on November 4th.  Baldwin, Barr, McCain, McKinney, Nader, and Obama.

Did Obama win the contest of SIX?

No, he did not.

The media won it for him, and they need to be forced to face what they are continuing to gleefully railroad in our faces as if it is OURS when it is not.

If the public had chosen with full and fair view (how hard IS THAT, really?) of the SIX not TWO candidates, how do you know who would have won?

Isn’t the proper contest REQUIRED before any decision as to cyncism is due?

The media OWES the truth, democracy was refused by the meddia and the majority allowed it, without knowledge that there were SIX on the ballot and the contest was due.

The OUTSIDE challenge to the incumbents of corrupt two party military offensives against this country and the world, is REQUIRED VIEW before voters, but the media refused!

Where did they get the right to pretend they delivered information enough to decide an AGENDA by a majority!

And, now we have Obama presented in the news with “no earmarks” and the media GLIB HYPE as if he is offering some strength when it is the opposite.

Earmarks tell who introduced the legislation.  No corporate lobbyists behind the legislator who has motive.  Corporate corrupt tyranny is before us.

The debate and the proper presentation was due for a TRUE contest and WHO KNOWS, just maybe the public would have voted for REAL CHANGE for PEOPLE against corporate corruption.

Democracy when actual, can deliver, and we did NOT have democracy just because an apathetic lazy majority who were not given choice allowed the tyranny.  They believed the media was being honest, and they knew they were refusing the challenge.  Voting ANYWAY, did not prove TRUTH of DEMOCRACY.

If given the proper opportunity to decide among six at an informed level, I believe Obama NEVER would win.

The outside challenge and urgent need to FIX the Bush hideous ripping and shredding of proper policy and upholding the U.S. Constitution and PEACE not WAR, would be CLEAR and DECIDED by a MAJORITY.

Obama is NOT offering any of those and he was an incumbent, and he is not capable of offering a balanced budget on track, he said before the election he wanted to attack Pakistan, and he also said enter and occupy Afghanistan, and the media SHORTSHRIFTED THAT INTENTIONALLY, they put it out there, but the gloss over it as if it is allowed, BY WHOM?  Not the public the media.

The media stinks and the voters stink, but true democracy when done, delivers a majority rule, and obviously if that majority rule proves integrity is voted for by a majority, then the picture would change.  Voters were not offered the democracy of choosing between SIX not TWO at an informed and proper and fair contest presentation level to net an honest majority agenda showing NOW.

We do not have that, because the media usurped democracy and the majority said fine, we are too lazy.

Obama is not offering to uphold the duties of President, and the media loves it.

I hate it.

I do not support the results.

I referenced it in a posting today, on my blog The National Gadfly. 

I think that you are dead on.  Thanks for the good work.

Well, the whole roof/ceiling collapsed! So..as I was reading over the posts…my hands are so cold, I can barely type!

I just noticed a couple of things…when I said that “Hillary and I could take an IQ test” (how did we get on that?? lol), I meant to follow it with “we might both get very different results, depending on all kinds of factors”. The only readon I “know her iQ” is because Yahoo! keeps beaming politician’s iQs at me everytime I log into my mail—lol.

“Starting your own business”(ie the quintsential “Am. Dream”) is not the same thing as the workers taking control of their work—“starting a business”, is , generally, a capitalistsic, individualistic pursuit.You can do that now, and politicians’ wil kiss your ass—“small busines” , “American dream”—but “snall bus.” seem to get bigger and bigger…

white tiger makes a couple of overlooked points, I think—why gold? Think about it. I mean, I know WHY it “developed that away” ( historically)—but, other than “shine” it seem pretty useless metal—I know i’m probably missing something—but the question, I think is a good one. (I have a penchant for “questions that are obvious, but seldom asked”)

I have one—if we live in a “meritocracy”, then , why arent the people who work the hardest paid the most? You really think Bush, Greenspan, etc. have “worked hard” all their lives (ever worked at all!)Waitresses work very hard—I did it for 5 years. I know that not as much formal education is required—but it is NOT easy! You had better know your math better than Hedge Fund managers, or your change will come up short!! Who gets to decide? Why do we let them? Why do profressors /teachers make so little? Nurses/ Social workers? Regular “soldiers” vs, mercenaries?

Someone on here commentetd about “railing at elites”—its strange how you seem to get those comments from—well, elites—and people who think that they wil be one someday. I dont think “getting to go to an Ivy League sachol” and “ending up working in the markets” (what—just woke up the one day??) necessarily merits your ridiculous lifestsyle—NYC is extremely esxpensive. You dont have to live there.If one is trying to drum up sympathy for the rich right now—good luck! Try a politician—they love you guys!

Why NOT keep people in their homes? (Well, I mean single families/people who bought a home to live in—just ONE) Because , the neo-liberals like easy targets—like the poor. You wil very seldom see them make any effort to lay the blame (please dont say “the blame game”—somenone IS to blame! And the saying is meant to distract you)at the feet of the people who fill their trough.

The problem is deeper, Anarcissie, than a lack of interest in cooperatives.  Americans don’t understand the relation and importance of power to their own personal lives. The simple truth about the power process subverts American ideology indoctrinated into people from childhood by the American learned and mass media. 

Therefore people are afraid to tell the simple truth about power because it is un-American, uneducated and ideological absurd, since it is incompatible with the mainstream truth.  An interest in cooperatives is part of more general interest in how people can increase their power against the American power structure.

We were the government long ago right up until the veterans of the World War Two became senior citizens. You see after the war the government had no choice but to listen to the millions of armed killers it needed during the war and when they returned politicians did not have the balls to not support them. Now that there all but gone we have forgotten.

Accept for the shining moments 1967-1972 we the idiots have let that power slip from our grasp again due to the greed of the baby boomers who sold us out for there golden years. Having fallen pray to the military industrial complex and the rise of corporate fascism that promised work hard don’t rock the boat and we will take care of you till you die.

Now as we can see that they may not be able to pull this off, to bad.

As a blue collar middle class worker I have watched the world that I know disappear. There can be no prosperity for the middle class without turning ideas into real objects and then selling them to others. WE don’t do that here any more. People like my self are to expensive and hell you can get the same thing done 10 to 20 times for half the cost and half the quality some were else.

Class war you bet no matter witch elitist punk gets elected. You see it is still us against them even after 3,000 years. It is just easier for most to forget the real history that brought us to this place in time. This democracy was born with the rifles in the hands of middle class men fighting for rich men’s rights not to pay taxes and it will probably end the same bloody way with the same middle class men trying to feed themselves.

We the People are the idiots ruling this country and we have no one but our selves to blame for the fate of this democracy.

Folktruther:
‘Anarcissie-Part of the reason that people don’e want to do cooperatives is because they see it as irrelevant and harmless, not possible as a viable alternative.

And it isn’t, unless there is a general strategy-and this means at this time in history a world strategy- to transform economic forms.  It is the lack of such a strategy which is largely the reason that marxists haven’t taken it seriously….’

There are lots of functioning cooperatives and communes.  The problem is not that they can’t exist or don’t exist, it’s that only a few people are interested in them.  In general, American workers haven’t shown much interest in taking control of their work.  I guess those who are interested start their own businesses and are thereby removed from the immediate experience of other workers.  World-scale cooperative notions do appear from time to time but they are so far removed from day-to-day experience there is not much reality to test the theories against.

Anarcissie-Part of the reason that people don’e want to do cooperatives is because they see it as irrelevant and harmless, not possible as a viable alternative.

And it isn’t, unless there is a general strategy-and this means at this time in history a world strategy- to transform economic forms.  It is the lack of such a strategy which is largely the reason that marxists haven’t taken it seriously.

But the US maight be the ideal place to start a historical movement of some kind, possibly including cooperatives.  The US is safe from military agression and its power system is so obsolete and reactionary and murderous that people might want some revolutionary alternative as soon as they fully realize what Amerian capitalism has in store for them.

But this requires the rejection of much of American ideology of the past, and the acknowledgement that a political counter revolution has occurred that is accepted by both parties.  A revolutionary alternative by the American people requires the rejection of the Neo-American power system.

Folktruther: ’... Do you think that capitalism will permit another social system to challenge it unopposed?  This doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but it must have some political means, at least, to defend itself.  If capitalism can simply pass laws and effectively enforce them, no social alternative is possible.’

There is not much point in worrying about it if only a small minority of the people want to do it.  As I complained a few weeks ago, we can’t even get people interested in unions, much less cooperative businesses.  And so thus far cooperatives and communes have been pretty much allowed to do as they please in the United States as long as they stay within the liberal constitutional and legal framework, probably at least partly because they’re seen as irrelevant and in any case harmless.

Should that change, it would make a big difference how it changed and in what context.  Under conditions similar to the present, Americans still have various rights and cooperativists might be able to defend themselves in court.  Should things get a bit rougher, they would still have the right to keep and bear arms, which might make direct attacks too costly to contemplate.  But it is true that a totalitarian crackdown would pretty much put a movement toward an alternative out of commission.  I don’t have a fix for that problem at the moment.

I meant, Whte Tiger, that marxism dominated the progressive ideologies of the world in the 20th century.  It is now partially obsolete and progressives require a some kind of theory, possibly based on marxism, to replace it. Classical marxist theory, for example, did not give due poltical weight to race and ethnicity in uniting groupings.

Unfortunately, conceptual revolution in social science, to a much creater extent than did scientific revolution in the natural sciences, would subvert the power delusions that the Educated classes impose on a population to legitmate their power.  That is why social science is so evasive, corrupt, irrelevant to the power interests of the population, and so conceptually fragmented and complicated.  And that is why social science lags historically so far behind the natural sciences.
                  ***
I repeat to you, Anarcissie, what happened to the communists.  15 capitalist nations with three hundred thousand men invaded Russia to side with the Whites during the Civil War. Russian dead approached 14 million.  This lead to a seige socialism that resulted in gross bureuacratic deformations.

Do you think that capitalism will permit another social system to challenge it unopposed?  This doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but it must have some political means, at least, to defend itself.  If capitalism can simply pass laws and effectively enforce them, no social alternative is possible.

Folktruther—what you say brings me back to my view that it is necessary to rebuild the social order from the ground up—or at least from pretty near the ground.  Suppose, for instance, that a lot of people had become interested in an alternative, cooperative economy.  Assuming the cooperative types weren’t violently suppressed, there would then be two social economies in operation, a more or less capitalist one and a more or less cooperative one.  (I would say “socialist” but I would be misunderstood.)  While the economies would not be sealed off from one another they would behave differently.  When this was noticed those in the cooperative economy might decide that they had to invent a different kind of money—one let us say somehow based directly on labor instead of intervening commodities or the power of the government to confiscate.  I am not going to specify how labor could be directly monetized, but stranger things have been thought of—there are proposals for money based on hydrogen, energy and computational power, among others.  Experience with labor money would probably lead to a different set of abilities and problems than we now observe with fiat money.  So maybe our money board would not find it as difficult to make the correct decisions about credit expansion as they have in the recent past.  We don’t know at this point because we have very little experience in anything but the status quo.

The Worldwide DEBT is the problem.

The best solution for the present economic crisis would be a REBOOT or restart of the entire debt system for the ENTIRE WORLD.

1. A data base listing ALL DEBT, government, business and personal needs to be created. The list would need to list the debt and debt holder with a bank that could make an accounting of the debt. Included would be all national debt of all nations, all mortgages car notes and credit cards for individuals. All outstanding bond and other debt for corporations, The idea is to list ALL DEBT of any kind owed.

2 . Every government on the planet would need to call a special secession of it’s legislature.
Using the same authority that governments have to use or create FIAT CURRENCY the legislatures and Central Banks need to authorize the creation of ACCOUNT CREDIT in an amount equal to all the listed debts in the world.

3. The Various governments and Central Banking Systems then need to make an accounting change equal to the debt in the form of an ACCOUNT CREDIT or CREDIT zeroing out ALL THE DEBT in the entire world, and crediting all debt-holders in the world.

The following day the economy of the entire world would restart and the Stock Markets of the world would react to the new renewed capital in the banking systems, the Capital now available to restart all business and the disposable income to the individual people would restart and grow the retail sectors and the manufacturing sectors of the entire world.                                     
Allen Charles Report
http://allencharlesreport.blogspot.com/

“Therefore it is necessary to formulate a theory or conceptual lanaguage that can be used as an ideology, succeeding the world ideology of marxism in the 20th century.”—folktruther

I don’t see how Marxism dominated the 20th century.  Certainly, the Soviet Union and China were nominally Marxist states but it is far more realistic to call them authoritarian.  And certainly capitalism reigned supreme globally in the 20th century.

It would be wonderful if a radically different paradigm emerged, but I don’t see it originating in the social sciences.  Perhaps, you could provide an example of innovations in the social sciences that point to a paradigm shift. 

And thanks Anarcissie for the monetary link tho’ I haven’t had time to read any of it.

You are quite right, Anarcissie, that people are not coherent as to what they want and believe, and this coherence is necessary for a democratic control of monetary agents. And for the power system as a whole.

Worse, people have been deluded, not least by economists, to believe in power delusions that are contrary to the reality-based truth.

Therefore it is necessary to formulate a theory or conceptual lanaguage that can be used as an ideology, succeeding the world ideology of marxism in the 20th century.  To generate an overall worldview of the power process in a way that serves the interests of the general population rather than that of the power structure. 

Otherwise people will continue to be deceived, cheated and initimidated as they are under liberal Democracies.

I think such a theory and transformation of worldview is possible over historical time.  A revolution in social science conceptually similar to the scientific revolutions in the natural sciences can be initiated in the 21st century, due to connceptual innovations associated with 20th century American social science.  And a global worldview instilled by the communication and transportation networks of global capitalism.

Such a truth revolution, in my opinion, is necessary for authentic democracy to replace the fake Democracy of the Western tradition.  The population of course will always be deceived by power, but it is possible to develop a better theoretical resistence to this deception. 

Otherwise, you are right,  there is no way for the population to control monetary policy in their long term interests.

Folktruther: ‘Not at all, Anarcissie.  We can have the money supply manipulatable if the population can control the agents doing the manipulating. Do you think it beyond the mind of man to devise a system to control money reps and an ideology that focuses attention on the crucial power components? ...’

Well, the same kind of minds that create the system are also going to be laboring to subvert it.  There might be a balance of power there.

The main problem I see at present with democratic control of the monetary system is that the people are not at all coherent as to what they want.  Many haven’t studied the way money works at all—and it is a bit technical and requires some reading—and in any case they have different values and goals.  For instance, when the present set of crises was brewing, I received a message from a mailing list in which some economist or other was arguing passionately for loose money.  (This was at the point where some of Bubbles
Greenspan’s monetary largesse was beginning to leak into the labor realm and drive up the CPI, so his successor was planning to raise interest rates.  As it turned out, that set off the subprime collapse.)  When the interest rates go up, supposedly investment and therefore employment go down; the poor need employment; etcetera.  Of course the poor also suffer mightily from inflation because they have the least power and it is hard for them to raise their incomes to account for inflation. 

Now, I was sort of horrified by this article because I could see the wreck coming, as could a lot of other people, yet he, an economist for Dog’s sake, either could not see it or didn’t care—he just wanted to make sure the poor had jobs.  Or whoever has the jobs that go in and out of existence according to the prime rate.  So suppose he and I were on the money board, how would we decide?  More money, lower interest, more employment, financial wreck further down the line, or less money, less inflation, less chance of a wreck?

One of the hard things about money is that it requires restraint.  There is always less of it than you want, or else it isn’t good for anything.  It embodies labor in a context of scarcity.  But the body politic, at least of the U.S., doesn’t seem to understand restraint—even supposed fiscal conservatives talk constantly about how they’re going to get or produce more and more stuff.  In the realm of money, this means running the printing press.

This is the least optimistic pronouncement I can remember in a long time:

“So I guess the choice is between having a fast economy with lots of stuff and world domination, along with crashes, environmental destruction, and a lot of fatheads pretending they’re smart because they can make money in a bull market, and having a slower economy with less stuff and fewer, shorter crashes, and probably forgoing world domination, too.”

If these are our only choices, we are really fracked.  I could live with less stuff, but less stuff and crashes, even if shorter?  World domination we can all live without.  So, there is no rational basis for a currency standard?  Currency is inherently irrational???  Wonderful. 

Going away now, depressed in the psychological sense.

the white tiger: ’... Nothing back the dollar now except perception. ...’

In a sense that’s true of any form of money.  In the ancient world, money was associated with religion and magic—the word money itself comes from the Latin word moneta, one of the attributes of Juno, in the basement of whose temple Roman coins were originally minted.  Probably, the association of shiny metals and jewels with magic goes back to their use in shamanistic hypnosis.  Later, gold and silver became important to alchemy and were thought to possess interesting metaphysical qualities.

Present-day money, though, seems to be mostly based on the state’s power to tax and confiscate.  A dollar of other monetary unit is a claim on the total wealth of the territory and people the state that issues it controls.  Of course, that’s a rather vague quantity, but it’s a very large one, so it impresses people.

I find W. F. Hummel’s pages on money interesting and passably believeable: http://wfhummel.net/

Not at all, Anarcissie.  We can have the money supply manipulatable if the population can control the agents doing the manipulating. Do you think it beyond the mind of man to devise a system to control money reps and an ideology that focuses attention on the crucial power components?

We are simply suffering under the power delusion that we have lived under a democratic system in the US, when it is actually a plutocracy making the power decisions in their own interests.  kThe US has always been a Democracy by definition, no matter how many people were enslaved, imprisioned, disinfranchized and impoverished.

The situation has merely become slightly more visible to the Educated classes after the Bushite counterrevolution.  but there is no reason why a real democacy can’t be envisioned, and, indeed, article 5 of the constitution permits it legally.  The question then of the money supply, the mass media, the schools, etc can all be reconsidered under a modification of the American power system.

OGP: ’... Unfortunately, Gold backing causes a fixed supply of money - a financial strait jacket- so the banking community cannot respond to the changing needs of commerce. ...’

Well, we have a dilemma.  On the one hand, people want to drive the economy very hard so they can work, work, work, and have more and more stuff.  So an inflexible money supply tied to a commodity won’t do.  On the other hand, as soon as the monetary system becomes manipulable, those in charge will start to manipulate it in ways that are destructive in the long term, but benefit some powerful constituency in the short term.  We had several layers of financial observation and criticism in the U.S., public and private, and it doesn’t seem to have done much good.  It certain didn’t prevent Bubbles Greenspan from enabling the recent monetary Ponzi scheme in real estate.

So I guess the choice is between having a fast economy with lots of stuff and world domination, along with crashes, environmental destruction, and a lot of fatheads pretending they’re smart because they can make money in a bull market, and having a slower economy with less stuff and fewer, shorter crashes, and probably forgoing world domination, too.

comment didn’t post.

I lost it but basically, I want to discuss how currency is backed.  Some of you seem to know.  Give us a tutorial.

from the beginning.  Some of you seem to understand this process better than I.  Others, who call for a return to the gold standard, not so much. 

If we understood how currency was backed better, we could understand the forces at work much more.  Recently, I read elsewhere that the US was on the ‘developed real estate’ standard in part under FDR in response to the Great Depression.  The same author explained that we have been on the ‘old standard’ for quite a while now, but oil shortages and the coming end of oil (not to mention that most of it resides outside US hands) makes that a dead end. 

Nothing back the dollar now except perception. I like the idea of backing the dollar with real world wealth, like food commodities.  I never understood why people would want to hold gold, silver or diamonds under an emergency.  You can’t eat them, and they inflate just like anything else. Hauling around a truckload of gold just to get your dinner is no solution to anything.  Gold is actually a limited use metal.  Too soft to do much with.  No real industrial uses for the most part. Silver is at least useful in some manufacturing.

Give me food, shelter and energy.  So basing currency on developed land is like basing it on shelter, right?  All those homes going into foreclosure are real wealth, before the are stripped of wiring and everything useful and turned into wrecks.  Then they are so much garbage that needs to be bulldozed. 

So why isn’t keeping people in their homes at all costs the priority?  Let’s forget about the ideological resistance.  Keeping them there keeps everyone’s property values up, keeps neighborhoods and towns and cities intact and gives people the where with all to continue to work, somehow at some useful job.  Why can’t we back the dollar with our developed real estate like under FDR?

But my most urgent question is: how to get a tutorial on the currency standards.

As far as Obama being under the thumb of all these forces, sure that is true.  However, as I said earlier, IT IS UP TO US TO ORGANIZE AND EDUCATE OURSELVES AND OTHERS AND CREATE AN UNDENIABLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO TURN ALL THIS AROUND.  The fascists around us will resist, infiltrate and generally do everything to stop this, but we have the very best change humanity has ever had to do this NOW.  We have the internet; we have masses of highly educated people ready to come forward.  We have a lot of resources.  We are not nearly as isolated as we were during the Great Depression. 

Times of great peril as also always times of great potential.

Give us that tutorial, please.

Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, October 23 at 6:11 am #

Still, there does seem to be something inherently wrong with the notion that you have the moral right to condemn another for where they put their private part for whatever reason.
********************************

I disagree unless you add that if another person is involved, they are a happily consenting adult.

Clearly rape, forced sodomy, and statutory rape/sodomy are within Society’s right to interfere to protect the individual being victimized.

But between happily consenting adults?  None of my business. (Unless, of course, they are doing it in the park where I or my children are forced to witness it.  But then…we are not happily consenting, whether adult or not)

Cyrena and ITW

I’d like to throw this out to you for comment and consideration:

Seems that intellectual maturing toward becoming productive and socially positive individuals might include the process of filtering through and getting beyond the myths, superstitions and propaganda fed us early on—before we could think—by adults, namely preachers, teachers, parents and politicians.  Also seems too many people allow themselves to be stuck in the earliest stages of this maturation.

This teaches me something.  I should never get comfortable thinking that I have arrived on any issue, even as a 67 year-old, because, if I did, I’d probably be committing the same error preventing me from being fully human as I accuse those less developed than I think I am of committing.

Still, there does seem to be something inherently wrong with the notion that you have the moral right to condemn another for where they put their private part for whatever reason.

I like considering myself in your company on that matter.

I was pleasantly surprised to note Saul’s use of the term “corporatism” to describe the effort “to push entrepreneurial initiative in areas normally reserved for public bodies,” which is how Fascism (and Nazism) evolved.
Corporatism is a term used more and more lately by the left, apparently because Fascism has become vulgarized into meaning any totalitarian system so that its true meaning is obscured. Nevertheless, the privatizing of so much of what was the public sector, as epitomized by Halliburton, is Fascism, regardless of what euphemism is applied to it. 
What will be interesting to see is the way in which the new stake the government has in the financial markets will evolve. It would appear to be a reversal of the tide, but may turn out differently than we now assume.

The Idiots that rule America are the people themselves.  As those of foundational philosophical thought have said:  “The leader of a people reflects the heart of the people”.  What individual is not penny wise and pound foolish, in all my life I have seen the excesses of all I have known in areas they like while they scrimped or judged others in other areas.  The present conditions are demographic and plotted on economic models for anyone that studies such and not only listens to the lies of politicians. The present downward trend was accuratley charted as far back as 1992 by economist Harry S Dent.  Check his books out, say what you want but he has been dead on for more than a decade. No, this is not about idiot American leaders but demographic and economic models that all in the know are full aware off and if the masses would stop watching American Idol and Dancing with stars and do a bit of individual responsibility homework they would better fare in the coming economic storm that is a trough in the waves of capitalist economics and demographis and not the manifestation of the lack of some wand waving messiah who many ignorantly hope the current celebrity canidate to be.

So, that brings us back to WHY should anybody care who marries someone else? Well, those who have this ‘problem’ obviously don’t want same sex relationships to benefit from same privileges that the law allows for in traditional civil marriages. Again, it’s NOT taking anything AWAY from them, and nobody is making them be homo rather than heterosexual. So, what else could it be?
*********************************

Why, indeed?  I’ve been married for over 20 years.  I expect only death to end our marriage.  How is a gay or lesbian marriage going to weaken that? By what mechanism?  We are two people who have been in love since the 80’s and made a life, a household and a family.  How can two OTHER people in a loving relationship, regardless of the genders of the partners in it, have any effect on me and my wife?

Who really thinks those people can hurt our marriage?
Who really thinks they will have more influence over our kids than we will?

I know I have posted that we should have only civil unions under law and let religions define “marriage”.  I don’t see that as inconsistent.

“Same-Sex Marriage” and “Anti-Abortion” are real push-button issues, but I think it’s totally irresponsible that people will risk our economy, our national security, our environment, and our freedoms because they don’t look beyond those two MINOR issues!

Yes, I know to the anti-abortion crowd, there’s no more important issue.  But I’ll tell you straight out: Turning America into a fascist state, or damaging our national security, or being unable to protect or help people in a natural disaster, is far, FAR worse and more important. It’s the survival of the nation.

Dr Know writes:

”..If I were elected president in a country that’s a big player in the world economy, I’d make everyone happy with my government by regularly passing out free stuff, including media stuff like computers and TVs, Xboxes, those new media phones, and cable so I could further spread my truth and stimulate supply-side…”

~~
Dr. Know…

I’m voting for you. But, can I just trade all of the media stuff (‘cept the new computer, since I need one of those too) for an RV or similar motor home? It can be ‘pre-owned’, and I’ll forfeit the cash payments too. I just need the motor home and the new (or refurbished) laptop.

Now THIS is of course what I’ve been recommending for ages. It’s a version of ‘let them eat cake’. (I think a different meaning from the original). In alternative dispute resolution, we (ideally) want EVERYBODY to eat cake. (the reality says it doesn’t always work that way, but it *IS* doable).

Anyway, what you’re really saying here, is that the Criminals totally F-ed up, because…THEY GOT TOO GRREEEDDDY!!!

That’s what ALWAYS happens to criminals. They can’t just steal enough of whatever it is to give themselves an edge, and leave enough for others who then wouldn’t even be likely to notice.

Nope, they always have to take it ALL, which of course pisses everybody off. And at the end, they even start pissing each other off, because the greed forces them to start stealing from each other. It’s the inevitable outcome. No honor among these thieves.

We were talking about this earlier today, in a different context, when I was startled to see all of the “Yes on measure A” signs here in my community. Measure A is intended to overturn the recent legislation allowing same gender marriage. The ‘slogan’ that goes with this position is ‘protect marriage’ or ‘protect marriage EQUALITY.’

Well, that’s like so much rhetoric. “Protect Marriage” for WHOM? And, what is it that’s really being ‘protected’ if this same sex marriage is over turned.

Well, what they MEAN, is that they want to protect their PRIVILIGE. In short, they don’t want same sex couples to have the same socio-ECONOMIC privilages as other traditional relationships. It’s *NOT* because it’s taking anything AWAY from traditional spousal relationships, so why would/should they care? In other words, why should I, as a straight person, care if two other people marry each other, (regardless of their sex) unless *I* wanted to marry one of them myself? Since I’m straight, I probably wouldn’t be interested in marrying any of them myself, since we’d obviously be of a different sexual orientation/identity.

So, that brings us back to WHY should anybody care who marries someone else? Well, those who have this ‘problem’ obviously don’t want same sex relationships to benefit from same privileges that the law allows for in traditional civil marriages. Again, it’s NOT taking anything AWAY from them, and nobody is making them be homo rather than heterosexual. So, what else could it be?

Folktruther:

Consider the following quotations:

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” (Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” (Woodrow Wilson)

“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are US government institutions. They are not… they are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the US for the benefit of themselves and their foreign and domestic swindlers, and rich and predatory money lenders. The sack of the United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will…The Federal Reserve (Banks) are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers.” (Rep. Louis McFadden)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” (David Rockefeller)

Peace.

Anarcissie, October 22 at 12:10 pm #

Inherit The Wind—You are a few centuries behind the times if you think the physical integrity of commodities (used to back money) can’t be assured.  Commodity-based money has problems, but physical debasement isn’t one of them.
**********************************

Anarcissie:  I was responding to Paolo’s call for a return to gold and silver money as opposed to a commodity basis for supporting paper money, which is a completely different thing.  My objections to gold and silver coinage are legitimate, yet with today’s modern technology it would be far easier to prevent debasement. Still, what’s to keep the US Government from issuing a $100 gold piece (as currency, not bullion) that’s got 1/10 of an ounce of fine gold, and then saying the $100 gold piece will now have 1/11 of an ounce of fine gold? Debasement!

OTOH, I am fully familiar with the concept of a commodity backing paper.  When the Reichsmark went insane in the early 1920’s devaluing a trillion times, the Weimar government created a new Mark, called the Rentenmark (Land Mark) that was based on the agricultural product of the Germany, and saved their economy.

The idea is to create a numeraire.  You can do it with precious metals, or jewels, or cocoa beans.  But it’s all based on PERCEPTION.  Money is only worth what people think it’s worth, and nothing more.  In that same German Hyperinflation, people actually papered their walls with Reichsmarks since they were the cheapest stuff to use.

Want to be an instant millionaire?  I’ve got half a million upstairs.  Unfortunately it’s a 500,000 Turkish Lira note, worth maybe fifty cents! Plus the souvenir value.

**********************************
And regardless of these problems, it is clear that it is better to have that kind of backing than the sort of thing practiced by the Federal Reserve Bank in recent years.
************************************

Agreed. No argument.  Therefore you must be an ignorant lout like me.  Welcome aboard!

you mention “if it were true”: google asparteme; & donald Rumsfeld; prev dept of defense; google “genetic seeds; google “floride” & find out that it is in our water supply cuz HITLER did it to poison the people; find out how many other countries have BANNED it & WHY; Ask WHY formaldehyde is used so agressively even in Baby’s shampoos; THEN ask why infants deaths are so high in the USA; THIS I have observed in my state: brand new low income apartment complexes built for illegals; 8 year licenses given out to illegals even being flown in from other states to obtain; while VETS get no medicine even for their hospitals; they have to use watered down meds; brand new cop cars everywhere; 100 new added to “state”; people do not have the RIGHT to water; they have a NEED for water; if they don’t have in 3 days they will die; THIS is the new motto of the “change” that is coming folks; the ST said 6 homes on 2 home lots; burned 100 acres they admitted to to “clear” for the huge amount of folks coming; this was mostly done before the “big crash”; whom if you look when reprimanded said: we are normally REWARDED: by the GOV folks; it is all a big SET UP; remember the Mormon children taken? Politicians tell it THIS way: legal citizens tore babies from mothers arms while they took refuge from them in church; THEY (we american citizens) are the TERRORISTS; and they are going to DEAL WITH US; Obama folks; isn’t it GREAT to live in this GREAT SOURCE of GOOD? Like I stated b/4; GOOD for WHOM and FOR WHAT???? certainly NOT the citizens of the USA; NOT for the Planet; & NOT for the people in Mexico; Canada; & every other country like Colombia; Iraq; Iran; Afghanistan; oh, and look back to the year 2000 & you will see where Ben Laden was critically ill & needed dialasis; YEP; Pakistan stated no one was even LOOKING for him; wanna bet he’s DEAD? And was never behind the twin towers any more than Saddam was?

I have not read 1984; i am subscribed to natural news; & several other sites; I am well familiar with Monstano the most evil company in the world that could have only come about & existed in the most evil Gov in the world; they are the makers of Agent Orange; along with most chemicals etc; they said they are not going to lose $1 in this recession which a politician said “yes, some companies may not make as much $ this year”; our Gov as explained by a politician is a “tool” for businesses; if you read books: might want to check out “age of deceit” which shows how our nation under FDR KNEW about Pearl Harbor; had full advance knowledge & indeed BAITED the Japanese to attack us; it did NOT start with the BUSH administration; nor with the slime bag crooks of Clintons; read “unlimited access” re Clinton’s terms in White House to get a REALITY glimpse of what & who they are & how they “operate” as well as “the real Hillary”; also “license to steal” which told all about the stealing etc that went on in Wall St; full knowledge & consent of the US Gov; indeed, they took lessons from good ol Capitol Hill; http://www.pbs.org; check out Bill Moyers journal; crimes on Capitol Hill; to get REAL KNOWLEDGE of how this “democracy” works;

Inherit, you ignorant lout.  Certainly a group of men can and must be entrusted to create money, although the way it is done in the US is corrupt folly. A central bank must be communally controlled in some way,and be transparent to serve the common interests rather than the rich. 

The trustees should be elected in some reasonable electoral system and have to publically justify their monetary actions.  I point out that in China the largest banks are owned by the government, there are capital controls to prevent hot money from banging around, and the state is controlled by party bureuacrats.

This is far from good but also far from the US bad.  China has a far better economic system than the US. (Or Israel.)

Expat—I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me.  If one were to revert to strictly cash transactions—that is, if we went back to the (European) Middle Ages financially—our economy would still function, but at a much slower pace.  One result of that would be that the only way to get ahead to any significant degree without the use of violence or fraud would be to be born into the right family and inherit money and social position.  That in turn would serve to create a very powerful class structure antithetical to our supposed liberal principles, but it would lead to a significant decline in consumption, since the class system would soon reduce the lowest layers of the social order to subsistence.  However, neither the people in general nor present-day ruling classes, operative and wannabe, are going to agree with this sort of reversion under present conditions.  People do want to get ahead; when I look around at how my neighbors live, I wouldn’t dare to suggest that they take a cut, although I would suggest that they spend their money more cleverly.

Inherit The Wind—You are a few centuries behind the times if you think the physical integrity of commodities (used to back money) can’t be assured.  Commodity-based money has problems, but physical debasement isn’t one of them.

And regardless of these problems, it is clear that it is better to have that kind of backing than the sort of thing practiced by the Federal Reserve Bank in recent years.

I don’t know what additional forms of regulation you have in mind, however.  When times are good, whatever sort of management is going on is going to be very popular with both the people and general and the ruling class, so that it will be politically inadvisable, if not suicidal, to blow the whistle.  That is why Greenspan was able to inflate credit and create bubbles for years and years.  Warnings were sounded, but those who issued them, including myself, were ignored or mocked.  The Administration, Congress and the financial community were happy to ride along on the gravy train until it fell off the rails.  I don’t see why people in the future will be any different.  What’s your solution to that problem?

Paolo, October 21 at 7:57 pm #

A long and interesting post. It seems you agree as to the fact of mankind’s inherently corruptible nature. As I stated, no man or group of men can be entrusted with the power to create money out of thin air, and not abuse the power. Hell, I probably couldn’t be granted the power, and not abuse it. Even though I know all the ins and outs of creating fiat currency.

*********************************

No one can. Nor should be. That’s what checks and balances are for.

*********************************

So, is “regulation” the answer?