i don't trust any politician

[datasuspect]

we have wars because they are profitable. natural disasters are profitable. 9-11 is profitable.



always remember, most politicians are liars. inveterate, heartless, cold liars. they are perfumed, well-fed, and nicely dressed gangsters. there more than likely will never be a knight in shining armor. the best we can hope for is someone who will at least minimize the economic suffering of the majority of people. notice i said "minimize" and not "erase." why?

because it is profitable to have an expendable workforce.

the rich will continue to get rich, power will continue accrue power.

but the stage has been set. how many laws has george w. bush already violated? how often does he get away with it?

his administration will be the playbook for the further dismantling of the united states. i fear it won't stop with him. how can people with that much money and power roll back the clock?

and dubya isn't unique. we've flirted with despotism and fascism in this country many times in the past. now the american people as a whole are stupid enough, programmable enough, manipulable enough for it to stick.

people know more about american idol than they do about the constitution. an educated populace (and that means MEANINGFUL EDUCATION, not job training) is the biggest threat to power.

the evidence IS discussed, it IS part of the public discourse, yet the tyranny of the bush administration runs unchecked.

they stole multiple elections, they started a war, "what will they think of next?"


and i know, i know, i'm not telling anybody something they don't already know, but i am beginning to question the efficacy of the two party corporate state in challenging, changing, or rolling back the progress of the oligarchy.

and if i seem negative, so be it. it's the only honest position i can take.



i can't bring myself to trust anybody who will not let me eat at their table.

[snappyturtle]

1. I don't feel like we have a voice. eom

[datasuspect]

5. it's a fine line between party identification and bias

and bias exists on both sides.

i can't allow myself to have tunnelvision as the result of blind (or relatively well-informed) allegiance to anything except myself and like-minded individuals, and naturally you ferret this out on a case by case basis. still, i wouldn't even call it "allegiance," shared interests identification might be more accurate.

i can in principle agree with many parts of the stated democratic platform, but i can't give an "open-mindedness" blank check to anybody.

[chaska]

2. Sounds like you're about to start talking about third parties...

Which I'm all for but only if we can get a system that allows us to rank our choices, so that voting for leftist party number two doesn't result in the election of the only Rightist party in the race.

Here's an interesting comment (not related to the above) I ran across by a poster named Alan. It's in response to a weak article (by someone named Donovan) called something like 'An Open Letter to Libertarian Activists'. DK and Ron Paul's positions are argued in the article.

I think the poster has some interesting things to say, though I don't necessarily agree with everything he say.


Throughout this country’s history, at least back to the late 19th century, the state has served the?interests of the rich, and capitalism in general. The social programs and “progress”?of which Donovan is so enamoured were and still are as though table scraps tossed?to the dogs, to keep them from getting too hungry and demanding a REAL meal.?Read Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism”, for starters. All so-called “progressive”?change, including the New Deal, and including even the civil rights movement and?women’s lib (etc.), has been largely in the interest of saving capitalism’s ass.?And it has worked very very well. It has kept those pesky natives well-fed so they?don’t rebel and do serious damage — like overthrowing the whole corrupt and?unsustainable system. It keeps everyone going to the polls every four years,?thinking (delusionally) that they are going to really get something. (And I plead?guilty, myself, to the charge of still entertaining electoral hopes — though they?are less and less with each cycle.)

For example: Here we have a guy — Donovan — who has a great deal of?positive energy and a reasonably good critique of capitalism, (or at least some?awareness that it is fucked), but he is effectively serving the capitalists and?plutocrats, by supporting the state machine that exists largely to support THEM!?He wants the state to institute still MORE social and other programs in order to?paper-over the wounds so they won’t look or smell so bad.?
And there are untold thousands (millions?) more like him: good-hearted, well-?intentioned, but EFFECTIVELY serving the oppressive and unsustainable system,?and creating a society of lazy, sick dependents rather than robust, vibrant, engaged?citizens. What Donovan and others like him (Kucinich, et al) don’t understand is?that a healthy society cannot be built by state programs. Like modern medicine,?the state is good at remedying certain acute illnesses, but it is powerless to build?health, and it cannot be looked-to to fulfill Faustian illusions such as the conquering?of death or poverty, or the perfection of man. (Or if it IS looked-to to fulfill such?illusions, then the price will be impossibly high.)

Building health requires a conscious, engaged citizenry and, past a point,?the state, just like modern medicine, can do little but further ensconce itself,?insinuate itself at every level and in every venue, and of course ask for more (and?MORE, and MORE) money and resources, without limit, while leaving the citizenry?more dependent and sick and dumbed-down than ever. They are both fucking beasts,?out of control.

We need radicals like Ron Paul to start slicing away at the state. We need LOTS?of them. Ron Paul has serious deficiencies, some of which I’ve already mentioned.?I know that. But he has great strengths as well. Some of his message is dead on?target. Appreciate him/them for what they do have that is vital.
Alan

[datasuspect]

6. i don't think an additional party would help matters

because then you run into a situation where "pattern recognition machines" (the average person) blindly swears fealty to yet one more institution that doesn't effectively serve their interests.

i think a more common sense solution is to end corporate subsidies of candidates for political office. make it less expensive to run a campaign, divest the government of all corporate influence and possibility of coercion.

you'll never see that happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The people aren't supposed to "trust" politicians.

As much as they'd like us to, it's our responsibility as citizens to question them, investigate them, yell at them, and vote them out of office when they screw up.

[datasuspect]

4. but they do hold a public "trust"

and in theory should act in our (we, the people's) best interests. with rare exception, i don't see this happening. and historically, for every piece of positive legislation there seem to be 5 more that are regressive and restrictive of our rights.

and if you protest the government, the rights of private property, or the rape of this planet, you will end up being classified as a "terrorist" under the current abrogation of US law.

but i hear what you are saying, and i agree, but i cannot identify with the average person in power. there are no commonalities.

the most basic of which is that i must pay for MY lunch.