Monday, February 1, 2010
Happy February!
Hiya Gang!
(Well... at least "hiya!" to those hardy few who occasionally pop by!)
Nope! Haven't "given up" on blogging; I've just been busy.
I hope to update the blog more frequently starting this month.
In the meantime...
If anyone would care to throw out some topics, thoughts, discussion starters via the comments section of this thread...
(*SMILE*) (*SHRUG*)
BILL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
There doesn't seem to be much worth talking about in the political realm any more. The whole game has now been so transparently exposed for the sham that it is, that it is impossible to discuss it as though it had any legitimacy.
I see the recent SCOTUS decision as the nose under the tent of eventual one-party rule--i.e., "the Corporate Party"--and I'm quite certain that following the nose comes the hump(ing).
To the extent that an Obama is opposed to the "System," he is largely powerless to do anything about it. The fact that he has these congressional majorities and still can't get anything done ("he can't lead!") is due largely to the fact that he is the most legitimately "grassroots" POTUS that we've had in my lifetime. Much of his campaign war chest came from individual, small donations. And much of his organization was done by actual engaged citizens, rather than by union operatives and the usual crowd of partisan hacks.
This looks like a good thing--"democracy in action"--until one comes to realize that by trumping "the game" with actual democracy, we have elected a man with no power. He has no chits to call in. He has done no favors in the past for powerful men, upon whom he can now call to scratch HIS back. He can state his goals as eloquently as hell, but he can't get them enacted as legislation, because he has no political leverage. The Dems in congress can't be pressured by the White House to risk displeasing their corporate sponsors, because Obama has no means of punishing them for non-compliance.
All the Republicans need to do is stonewall while Obama fails, and then get swept back into power, big-time, by the now limitless access those who go-along-to-get-along will have to corporate money. It's over. America will soon be a one-party vassel state, or else the perpetrator of WWIII in an attempt to get out of debt by killing the lender.
This is a good time to be getting old.
P.S.--I've decided to cross-post the rant above at Rodak Riffs as my "sayonara" to writing about politics.
Still REALLY busy, Rob, but I WILL address your comments in the next day or so.
Thanks - AS ALWAYS - for dropping by!
BILL
Rob,
The recent SCOTUS decision was the correct one. If anything, the media should be focusing upon the question of how four of the nine Justices could have voted AGAINST the Constitutionalists.
(Hmm... I think I've just answered my own question: Obviously for those four, the Constitution itself is of secondary consideration to ideology and policy preference.)
One can't help but notice that with every critique of Obama you add basically a "but..."
(*SHRUG*)
Typical.
I agree with you that large numbers of small individual political donations are a good sign of a healthy political system, but I suggest you do a bit of independent research on Obama's fundraising.
(*SMILE*) (I know you won't - it would take time and effort and while you're not lazy, your focus is on other things and you wouldn't consider political/economic research a worthwhile use of your limited research time.)
Basically, Rob, you live in a fantasy world and on many issues... er... you simply don't know what the heck you're talking about.
(I'm still focusing on Obama's backers and where Obama's money and support came from.)
(*WINK*) (*GRIN*)
Anyway, Rob, thanks for sharing your perspective.
BILL
There is nothing NECESSARY about defining a corporation as a person for the purposes of funding partisan political campaigns. That's just as arbitrary (and wrong) as Roe v. Wade. And it will be the death of our democracy (such as it was.)
Btw, I realize that Obama also got a large amount of money from the usual sources. What was different, in his case, was the large number (even by percentage) of individual contributions he received. The enthusiasm indicated by those contributions is what allowed him to overtake and surpass, HRC--the establishment's candidate--and win the nomination. And then the election. But now, any one corporation, should it want to, could match and double or triple any amount of dollars donated by individual citizens. And it could buy up all the air time for ads, should it want to: effectively stifling "free speech." There is no limit on what a consortium of corporate entities with common interests could do to suppress the ability to the little guy to get his message out there, simply by buying up space in the media--both print and broadcast.
Media campaigns are effective. This is not disputed.
This has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with democracy and the relevance of the individual citizen to the process.
"There is nothing NECESSARY about defining a corporation as a person..."
Rob. I'm with you philosophically! But as I tried to explain to ANOTHER "Rob" - another friend of mine; a close personal friend - the entire basis of business law depends upon this legal fiction.
I mean... what do you think INCORPORATION means/does?
In order for the SCOTUS to have ruled "corporate personhood" a non-starter, not only would they have had to throw out precedent back to the Founding... they would have had to throw out the very concept that our civil business law and regulation is based upon.
I'm sure an attorney could explain it far better than I, but that's the gist, cyberbud.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
Post a Comment