What to do in the mad, mad world?

Life, including that of our ancestors adapted to global warming after each ice age. If you're that worried, apply a sun block, or stay indoors.

Bush is gone, get over him.

 

Most often the environmental topic tends to be that of the rich versus the poor, but if the topic is the natural environment, then I might agree that "mine" can also be "yours" in many cases.

 

Little difficult to stay indoors as a roofer. Also a little difficult to get over that chimp of a president after what he and his minions have done to this country. So---no thanks.

 

There are no discrete systems, only the belief that you can be alone or separate.

 

Then use the sun block, and there's no point in holding on to grudges, most of us have gotten over Clinton, and Bush, and we'll do the same with Obama once he is gone. If we're lucky we might eventually elect a President of the entire U.S. but the partisan bickering sure takes the heat off the politicians.

 

NO discrete systems? You can't recognize as fact when you're alone or separate?

 

Indie

If there is a bad political system the rational thing to do is change it, not ‘adapt’ to it.

I mean imagine a system where through no fault of their own a person was born into slavery - you would seem to be implying that the slave should ‘adapt’ to being a slave, just learn to live with it.

In any fabricated environment (all political systems are artificial constructs) there are conflicts of interests, the best systems try to balance those interests.

And those that may benefit from any system are more likely to argue against change and that those that don’t benefit should ‘just live with it’, but to me if a system isn’t trying to work for the benefit of all, then it isn’t working properly.

This is incredibly ill informed or facetious anyway is this the place for a discussion on global warming?

 

The problem as I (and others) see it - is mindsets and attitudes - and the only way to change such things is through education.

But before you can even start that process of change you need to understand the mindset and attitudes that are opposed to change or want to bring about change that would seemingly make things worse and why those ideas are being held.

And that has been the main problem I’ve had here - because so many seem unable to defend their views form criticisms but irrationally continue to believe in those views even knowing they’re unable to address what often seem to be the fatal flaws in them. It’s like they see political ideology as if it were a religion, based not on rational argument but on belief.

And the promotion of these political religions is well financed. Just as the crackpot ideas of Herbert Spencer were supported and promoted by the Robber Barons so today the crackpot ideas of neo-liberalism and the ‘free market’ are promoted by such people as the Koch brothers.

 

The point about a well functioning democracy is that in it the influence of the majority vote should balance the influence of the powerful few.

In a monetary based system power can often come with wealth so to me a step in the right direction would be to try and separate the influence of power wealth from gaining the upper hand.

Here are a few musings on that –

*Limited campaign periods – the longer the campaign season, the more money needs to be raised and the more likely that ‘wealth’ can gain influence.

*During campaign periods political airtime slots are limited and free to any political party that polls 5% or more of electorate.

*Limits on the type and amount of political advertising going on at any other times.

*Limits on campaign contributions, especially from large donations corporations or wealthy individuals.

And here a few ideas on limiting the power of lobbyists that might also be of help.

* All political bias should be out in the open and be reported as such when material from a lobby group is cited or a co-ed piece is written or presented by the media. For example ‘that is from a report by the right wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute’ or ‘this is John Doe of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute’ or ‘said the environmental group Greenpeace’.

*The status of think tanks as non-profit or tax exempt is linked to a formal declaration of being non partisan, this should be more rigorously policed.

*A limit should be put on how much can be earned for working for such groups. Lobbying should be about doing something because you want to not because you’re being paid to do it. In the same way possibly the amount spent on lawyers or public relations firms in the support of a cause should be regulated.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group and seeking public office or being appointed to a political position.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with a lobby group.

*There must be a gap of at least five years between holding a public office or holding an appointment to a political position and receiving money from or holding a position with any corporation that receives government contracts.

*A ban on the ability of lobbyists to make contributions to politician’s electoral campaigns.

 

Also as I see it one of the major problems with the US political landscape is the limitation of having only two parties that are in many ways just two branches of the right wing.

A system with much more proportional representation in it would help.

At the moment the left wingers have very little alternative to voting for a centre right political group or allow a more right wing group to get into power. This is not a very good choice and it is not surprising that many are less than enthusiastic about it or willing to put their all into the campaign. You only need to see the vitriol the US Green party got for ‘splitting’ the vote to see that something is deeply wrong.

On the other side we have rational pragmatic conservatives sharing a bed with ideological fanatics of the religious fundamentalists and neo-liberal free market fantasists.

Under PR this moribund system could become dynamic people would have real choice and be able -with conviction - to campaign for what they believed in.

Think about it -

“Under a pure proportional representation system, if a party won 21 percent of the votes, it would receive 21 percent (at least roughly) of the seats in the legislature; in a first-past-the-post system, a party could receive 21 percent of the votes (or even, theoretically, 49 percent of the votes) and zero seats in the legislature.”
Third party (United States)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)

For a time when PR was used in the US try - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States
Which tells us -

“For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.
Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.
Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/... of PR.htm


Try going to - The Center for Voting and Democracy

http://www.fairvote.org/

 

...and so, i default to:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

in recent times, this act has been tried in serbia/bosnia (forget the name of the region, but they have achieved a shaky independence), i think the chinese are looking at dealing with a couple of islands...mostly, the separations are dealt with as the british tried to deal with us, or the belgians with the congo or a host of other historical examples...holding us by force. the same as a spouse who wishes to leave being constrained by manipulation or force. when the south tried to secede from the north, force was used to retain them. gangs use force to keep members 'in'. force is the popular alternative to ensure continued subscription. 'no, you cannot leave. i will not allow it'. those who subscribe to this are simply hoodlums who rationalize their use of force...why do those of us who do not agree with our fellows not get to opt out of the bullshit? because...the consequences are steep.

and so, we are held in place by the implication of force. pay your taxes, or we will take all you have and put you in a cage. the meek shall inherit the earth...after the strong are finished with it.

i do not agree with the idea of 'one people' as used above...we are all one people. we seem to have a great deal of difference in our perspectives, however. various groups of thinkers have attempted to deal with the tyranny of the majority through human history. thievery through taxes or at the point of a sword or by deception has been used regularly to take from one to line the pockets of another....

one might say with a great deal of justification that people have not progressed beyond their animal nature....theft and bullying are legally approved in eminent domain, progressive tax schemes, corporate by laws, market manipulation...i therefore believe, you get to live as you can defend, either by force or guile. all other discussion is simply mental masturbation of one's fantasies...

 

Amen brother. Two choices is not choice. We need a Workers Party. Especially after what their doing to the middle class and unions.

 

We shouldn't have to adapt to a political system, it should not ever acquire enough power over society to have more than a minimal effect over our lives. Change, from how we began our government is what has got us into trouble.

Try just sticking with reality, the imagination often runs wild.

A free society should never allow government to become so powerful that it becomes the basis of defining the society.

scratcho brought up global warming. I'm still waiting for some facts, after all it's only been about 40 years since we were being sold on global cooling. There is no question that climate does change over time, the real question being "how much, if any of the cause is anthropogenic?" The answer requires gathering "ALL" the facts without manipulation to achieve a desired answer. That's all I have to say on the subject in this thread.

I'm still uncertain if "mad" should be defined as angry, or insane in this thread, or both.

 

Education is good as long as it deals with facts, politics and socialism tend to promote beliefs that lead us to division, and eventually to wars.

 

Or you to live to the extent you can create conditions for yourself. I mean that would be the other side of the equation.

 

You seem to ignore the fact that the U.S. was not founded as "A" democracy, but as a Republican form of government, not to be confused with the Republican party, comprised of democratic states whereby both the people and the States had a voice in governing the country as a whole.
Sovereignty is meant to begin with the people, who give up a little to their respective States, and in turn both the people and the States give up a little to the Federal government. Government should work from the bottom up, not from the top down. There is quite a difference between being governed and being ruled.

 

Forget about "global warming", as in the concept that politicians and scientists alike manipulated for political gain.

Stand in a Wal-mart parking lot, feel the heat, take the temperature, and then go stand in a field and do the same thing and then tell me humans don't have an effect on the environment.

It doesn't take mountains of research to understand this.

Its unfortunate that "global warming" has been manipulated and politicized to the point where the tide is turning and many refuse to accept any responsiblity for their impact on the environment.

Natural climate change is certainly occuring and has been occuring since the earth began, but its undeniable that human impact plays a part in this too.

 

Obviously you don't know your left from your right.

If the Federal government confined itself to just what is enumerated in the Constitution, it would matter little which party was in power.

 

I've given up on politics, it's hopeless! No matter what political party gets in power no one is ever satisified or happy. The next best thing is to offer more choice to the people, that is have more than just two political parties to vote for and that will cover the political spectrum.

 

Depending on the State you live in, there were other candidates besides the two, Calero, La Riva, and Moore, of the Socialist Workers, Socialism and Liberation, and Socialist parties respectively.

Better yet, instead of just more choices, how about requiring elections continue until a candidate receive greater than 75% of the vote?

Anyone notice Belgium has gone a year without forming a full government?