As I look around on these forums and elsewhere, I see and hear a lot of people complain. I'm one of them. What I haven't seen - folks getting together and working out a plan of action aimed toward a solution. Maybe we can do that here. In my opinion, there is a solution and a couple times I've suggested it before around these forums. It won't be quick, it won't be easy. The problems there are didn't happen overnight and they're deeply rooted. Every time I've suggested this solution some folks have put the idea down without offering an alternative. I don't know why that is... maybe some folks would rather continue sitting & bitching instead of getting off their asses and working. I hate thinking that, "hippies" not wanting to get involved in correcting problems. So anyhow... here's my not easy, not quick suggested solution: The answer should be that we all get out to the polls and vote for change. The problem is, as I see it, there are few, if any, to vote FOR. Plenty to vote against. Again, as I see it, the Democrats nor Republicans (or as I call them - the Dummy-crats and Repugnant-ones) are unlikely to offer choices we can vote FOR. I think they are two sides of the same coin, when what is needed is a whole new form of currency. We need to move in and take over a political party or more likely, start a new one. Then we need to get "some of our own" elected. I'm suggesting nothing less radical then an end to the "two party" system. Until that stranglehold and monopoly on power and control is broken, true change and indeed representative government seems to me unlikely. Yes, that's right, I'm suggesting that hippies get together, form a political party, and not only get out and vote, but some of us need to get out there and be someone to vote FOR. My suggestion continues... got to start somewhere and to start with ( & for the first few years) we'll not consider the office of President or even the U.S. Senate. Maybe some state & local offices, but mostly the U.S. House of Representatives. Consider this, the House is where all U.S. government spending starts - steer the spending to alter the course of government action. And it wouldn't require a majority control of the House. Look at how close so many votes are in the House. If we could get 45 "of our own" elected, that'd be about 10% of the House, that would be enough to control the outcome of those close votes. That would be a start toward real change. And if we can't get anyone elected, then we are truly very much in the minority and the majority IS in charge. But either way, we'd get a lot more people involved, with us or against, and that's be a good thing. Well, that's my opinion and suggestion, there's more ... if anyone's interested... Peace, poor_old_dad
The Green Party is a very definite possibility. A couple things about them, they already have a set & large agenda, very defused efforts ... not a deal breaker by any means, but it is true. And they have the international political connection, probably another benifit. And by strange coincdence, nationwide they have 386 candidate for state, local and federal posts, 45 candidates for the House. Another, this time negative, point is the whole Ralph Nadar thing. Their site: http://www.gp.org/ their platform: http://www.gp.org/platform.shtml Like I said, maybe if we all need to join an established party. Actually, I said move in and take over... that was probably a little too strong. Let's try something... Open Question: Are there any active Green Party members who will post their ideas here? Let's see what happens. Peace, poor_old_dad
nader is indeed the american greens' albatros. we need to get him out of the limelight, let him make calculations in the back room or something. just because he's someone who became widely known a few decades back, doesn't make him a good face for us. he was about consumerism. another ism that pretty much missess the green point. i really doing see him as in any way representing green interests. thoreau, emerson, lao tsu, and piotor kropotkin everyone needs to read more of, and maybe a little of kalil gibrans 'the prophet too'. anyway i think the problem, here on 2006 earth, is that trying to paint everything with one stroke of a too wide brush is turning everything into crap. arguing over what kind of a too wide brush to use, or what colors to dip it in, totaly missess the point. economics, idiology and belief, are ALL 'too wide of a brush'. the only thing we need to do with that wide of a brush is to prevent narrower, more accurately focused, brushes, from being prevented from painting fantastical little narrow winding rambling pathways and trails through gardens and forrests to microhouses and ultra light rail, non combustion powered alternatives to that adamant and arbitrary distructiveness which has come to pervade and is slowly destroying everything that is worth a dam about our world. you know that's the same point i get out of thoreau, lao tsu, the origeonal hippies, mahandus k ghandi, even tolkin's hobbits. =^^= .../\...
What's your plan for deporting illegal aliens? If you dont have one, dont even bother. You'll get nowhere. America demands action. Just a friendly reality check ;-)
Sounds like you and I read a lot of the same authors. As far as Nader and the Green Party go.... I believe that Nader was not a member of the Green Party before or after the 2000 election. In the 2000 election he received 2.74% of the popular vote, missing the 5% needed to qualify the Green Party for federally distributed public funding in the next election, the claimed purpose of his Presidential bid. On Christmas Eve, 2003, Ralph Nader declared that he would not seek the Green party's nomination for president in 2004, but later did decide to seek endorsement (rather than the nomination) of the Green Party, and other third parties. And to be fair to Nader, this is from the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934) is an American attorney and political activist. Issues he has promoted include consumer rights, feminism, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader has also been a critic of American foreign policy in recent decades, which he views as corporatist, imperialist, and contrary to the fundamental values of democracy and human rights. His activism has played a large part in the creation of many governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the EPA, OSHA, Public Citizen, PIRGs and many more. The Wikipedia article about the Green Party of the U.U. is very interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(United_States) I very much like your "wide brush" metaphor. Another thing about wide brushs, sometime things are spread too thin. And as I see it, that may be the Green Party's situation. Best I can find out, from the Green Party (of the U.S.) web site the Total Registered Greens Nationwide: 304,796 in 20 States and the District of Columbia as of early May 2005. That's just states that register voters there are many thousand in other states. But it's not a lot of folks compared to the 122,293,332 votes cast in the 2004 election. So a major tip of the hat to them for so few trying so much. On the other hand, it may be too much. For the 2006 election cycle, the Green Party has 386 Candidates in 38 States running for 65 Types of Offices and have already had 23 Victories (mostly by running un-opposed). My feeling is that it may be a wide brush spreading things a little thin, but not perhaps not. Two years from now, the election cycle will include the presidential election... then, as it was 2 years ago, things (people and all resources$$) will be spread much thinner. Another thing I find interesting about all this are in the election results: 2000 election - Nader (Green Party) = 2,883,105(2.7%) votes 2004 election - Nader = 463,653(0.4%) votes; David Cobb (Green Party)= 119,859(0.1%) votes So in 2000, Nader running as the Green Party candidate, got 5 times more votes than the total of him running as an independent plus the number the Green Party's candidate got 2004. In fact, in 2004, the Cobb (Green Party) came in 6th in popular vote. The Libertarian Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Libertarian_Party and the Constitution Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_Party got more votes. I don't have a plan at all. I have a few ideas, opinions and suggestions. But my idea when starting this thread was for as many as wanted to get together and come up with a plan. In general, I think that existing laws need to be followed until they can be changed to reflect what the majority want. I think that's what a representative government should do, it's the way things should work, it's the way things haven't been going. And what you mentioned, deporting illegal aliens, along the whole legal & illegal immigration situation, is a perfect example. Everything I see, polls etc., say that the majority of Americans illegal immigrants deported, illegal immigration stopped, and legal immigration cut way back. But I also see that the majority of Americans don't vote. And I think that goes right to the core of the problem. Americans would like action, but they're not demanding action. Certainly not getting out and doing something about it. Peace, poor_old_dad
I voted for Nader in 2000 and didnt vote in 2004 because the whole process is corrupt. Democrats and Republicans are both corrupt rich anti-majority elites who ignore what their bosses (the electorate) order them to do. The media is controlled and people are fat and happy with material lifestyle and dont care what is happening around them. The old adage that "things must get worse before they get better" may be prophetical. I suppose this fall I will vote for the absolute worst candidates who are most hostile to the middle class in hopes that it will eventually cause a revolution. This economy MUST collapse. It will be the beginning of the end for the current corrupt order. WORSE is BETTER....
I've heard that too. But I can't recall a time in U.S. or world history when it happened, can you? If it has, it led to the here & now. No, when things are getting worse, they just keep getting worse until someone or group does something about it. Do you really think voting against you beliefs is the answer, that it's something you can live with? Do you really think becoming part of the problem will make the problem go away? You say this economy must collapse, I can't see how that would happen, can you describe how that would take place? It shows no signs of that happening. Last year, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product was about $12,500,000,000,000.00, about $34,240,000,000 per day !!! Largest ever. The total spent over the past few years in & on Iraq is about $334,000,000,000... that's less than ten days of what this country produces. But let's consider what would happen: If the economy did collapse, let's say "overnight" or suddenly, among other things the food production & distribution systems would stop & there would be mass starvation ... tens or even hundreds of millions. Seem extreme? Go ask your local grocery store how long they can stay open if food shipments stop. Let's say the economy collapsed, but slowly. If it did start to do that, those now suffering would be joined by others suffering and the suffering would get worse, the rich would get richer and the poor would become more numerous and worse off. And rather than continuing to collapse it would be patched. Or maybe the people we let continue to control the country would just invade a few more countries. Of course, if nothing continues to be done, they'll finish poisioning the planet, the whole planet will collapse & we'll all die. Please remember: "...the people who are in charge now have a vested interest in increasing our cynicism..." Don't let that happen to you, peaceful change IS possible, if we (hippies, poor, minorities, etc) will once again get busy. But it is seeming more & more like some folks want to just stick their heads in the sand & that'll make things better. And other folks want things to get worse, or use violence, to make things better. Do you think we can't do it, think we can't make a change, think we can't make things better? As my father, a Jazz muscian, would have said, "Not with that attitude." Consider other causes, anti-Vietnam war, civil rights, environment, etc. These all started with a few good folks doing what they could and that got more & more involved. Things went from a group to a movement. And things got better instead of continuing to get worse. Peace, poor_old_dad
I can understand the "dems and repubs are alike" argument, and they are a lot alike. But they're not the same, and the differences are extreme. Personally, I'll be voting Democrat for the foreseeable future. Libertarians believe that companies with ethics like Halliburton and Enron, freed from oversight, will magically become tolerable entities. The "Green Party" in the US is primarily funded by the Republican Party. The Communist and Socialist parties will never convince many people to set aside the Invisible Hand. I think there's room for a "technology party." Guiding principles would be to reject all religion and other silly superstitions as a source of political influence, and support logic and reason instead. Particular issues of concern would be DRM issues with particular attention to reforming the Telecom act of a few years back; promoting education; promotion of personal liberties such as legalization of drugs and gay marriage; better management of natural and human resources; promotion of peace through the promotion of critical thinking skills; extreme limits on executive authority, etc. In other words, perhaps a Slashdot Party? Also, someone commented that "...the people who are in charge now have a vested interest in increasing our cynicism..." That's true to the extreme. Especially if it makes one too cynical to vote, attend a demonstration, or write a legislator.
Indeed, there are big differences. But it seems to me that there is a de facto allience too. Together and seperatly, the Dummy-crats & Repugnant-ones have a monololy and stranglehold on power. Together and seperatly they are interested preventing "other voices at the table". Consider the physical layout of the legislative buildings in Washington DC & as far as I know all the state capitols too. They are layed out for the two party system. In the opinion of this old hippie, the two party system is a big part of the problem. Here's why; In the world of today (and tomorrow) there are, safe to say, lots of problems and issues. There is also better communication than ever. That means that more people know about the problems and issues, and the thinking people form opinions. That's too many opinions to be covered by an either / or ... this or that ... Dems or Repub system. How often have you heard or felt, "I don't (fully) agree with either"? That helps lead to a feeling of being left out & development of cynical feelings toward the process. Look at the democratic countries with high voter turnout. There are lots of political parties, maybe dozens or more. That increases the change there's a party that comes close to your views. Not so in the USA. Using my self as an example: On social issues I generally agree with the Democrates, but sometimes my feelings are more extreme... on the boarder of Socialism. I agree with the theoretical Rupublican view that government should be smaller and less intrusive, but I think less intrusive into private, personal lives. Reduce and redirect government. As in "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau, [ original title: Resistance to Civil Government] ..."I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." And I also strongly believe in a massive reduction in military spending, which neither party even talks about. So as you can see, when it comes to the two party system, I'm left out in the cold. I could be wrong, but I believe a lot of folks feel the same. Peace, poor_old_dad
Could you show examples of that. I'm not disagreeing with you. There is well documented proof of Republican support (paying for ads) for Nader as Green Party nominee. I'm just wondering if there is more. Peace, poor_old_dad
I agree with each and every one of your points. Among other things that I would add, as mentioned earlier, a massive reduction in US military spending. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures ...a list of countries by military expenditures for the year 2004. Most of the information is from The World Factbook, CIA. The world spent over 896 billion US dollars on military expenditures and the United States spent the most with 58% of this total. latest information on military spending, as of Oct 6, 2006 : https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2067rank.html In other words, according to the CIA, the USA spends more on military the THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!! And no, I don't trust the CIA, I'd bet it's actually worse. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a strong military. My grandfather - WWI vet, my father - WWII vet, I'm a vet of as they call it the "Vietnam Era", my youngest son is now in the Navy. But more than the rest of the world combined is way above ridiculous. I'll go into how & how much I'd reduce the milirary if anyone cares. But consider; West Point graduate, career US Army, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe, and two term Republican President Eisenhower in his "message of leave-taking and farewell" warned this country "beware of the military industrial complex". It is a great speach full text here: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html Peace, poor_old_dad
Well, it's clear this didn't work. I believe in the old saying, "One person can make a difference". I've seen it happen, I've seen it first hand, up close. It wasn't me, but I've been there - seen that. In fact, it was Dr. King. Anyhow, a logical extension is that a group working together can make real changes. So after years around these forums, I came to the Politics sub-forum and I thought I could get some discussions started about coming up with solutions and how to do them. Like the Beatles said in "Revolution 1" on the White Album: "You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan" Well, I was wrong. No big deal, been wrong before, I'll just add this to the long "I was wrong" list. I don't know why this is, but that's just another entry on the "Things I don't know" list. Not that anyone cares, but I'm not going to give up on the idea, just have to try elsewhere. And again, not that anyone cares, but with elections only 19 days away, I've got to re-focus my efforts on the ballot initiatives I've volunteered to work for and/or against. See ya'll around. Peace, poor_old_dad
