Might have something to do with the way we elect our representative government.
This nation uses a two party system one degree less than a parlimentary government (which aint much).
I have heard the arguments for and against, especially during the election. I personally do not care how ed up things get so I favor more than a two-party system. But I can at least see the oppos ion's logic when a President might be elected to office with less than 25% of the popular vote (if there were five parties, for example, and the candidate won the required state's electoral votes by the same margin internally).
It would create a crowded field, to be sure. But I think the field needs to be crowded in short order. As it were...
Government is tricky business. So is money. So is law enforcement.
All absolutely necessary, all equally distrusted by default (guilty until proven innocent).
Rightfully so, I say. They should be distrusted from their birth until their death. Their mere existence should raise your su ion and that persistent feeling should never leave your conscience.
Because money/government/police should be treated no differently than children, from a societal perspective anyway. If you give them and inch, they take a mile. Problem is, when the government takes a mile, your child no longer has college tuition (so the stakes are raised exponentially). As a group, the onus should be on the officer's to prove they didnt shoot that civilian without good cause. As a society, we should expect the banking ins utions to have full disclosure of their investment and trade practices first and foremost. As a People, we absolutely must demand the rights of individuals supercede without question or debate the needs of government or the majority at large.
There are exceptions to every "rule" I wrote there. There always are and always will be. But the spirit should be followed, IMO.
Why?
Because, as a society, we give them power over us. Intentionally or inadvertently, this does not matter. Which is the reason I always ask "Who benefits?" when something strikes me as odd in the news.
Every good citizen knows law enforcement is absolutely needed, so we intentionally give police forces/FBI/etc a pre-determined amount of power to execute their role in society effectively.
Inadvertently and without notice, youre also empowering the legislature of your local municipality, Congress or the POTUS to use that given power against us because they are responsible for crafting law and policy of the land. Sometimes by popular demand (airport security after 9/11), sometimes not so much (War on Drugs). Sometimes even for an overt, government power-grab, no bones about it (domestic wire-tapping).
These en ies become self-interested and equally debted to one another, thus We the People become obsolete. The People become a necessary evil to them, as they are a necessary evil to us.
What was supposed to be a symbiotic relationship mutates into a battle of parasites competing for the same host. Whether the People will "vote themselves largesse from the public treasury" or the goverment levies unrestricted tax, or spreads the notion of fear for political gain, or any number of tactics (new or unfound as of yet).
One way or the other, the relationship is adversarial. How intense that adversity is determines stability. The USA is unyieldingly stable in comparison to its contemporaries, it isnt even close really.
To be honest, thats the most terrifying part of the equation. While the G20 summit in Britain causes hundreds if not thousands of English citizens to flood the space around the summit building in protest (rightly or wrongly), do we think the same would happen in America?
Moreover, wouldnt we as Americans look down on the unruly ones who chose to voice their dissent?
If there were ever a time for protest in our generation's time, it is now. Our parents had Vietnam and they rightfully resisted the government's every move.
This financial crisis is nowhere near the same as a war/engagement like Vietnam, but its implications to our way of life are way more profound than stopping those filthy reds from expanding their influence in some far-off region of rubber trees.
Yet, all I see is justification. Justify the government, justify the banks, justify the ensuing action, rationalize, justify, accept, conform, understand, make-do, etc.
Sure, the government will put on its dog-n-pony show for the cameras and grill some not-so-lucky-today CEO about its practices, but ultimately, later that day those same politicians signed legislation that effectively wrote checks with a lot of zeros attached to that same guy.
Its because as a government, we allow private ins utions to become so influential, intertwined and incredibly HUGE that their very existence is necessary to the government and its People not going bankrupt, wholesale.
My question is, who is the real asshole in this case? Who really benefits?
The answers arent flattering. People say all the time "Hate the game, not the player". These CEOs/bankers/financial managers play the game better than you and me because their wealth and prestige allow them influence over the rules of the game by way of government. These rules are then enforced by law and law enforcement.
So, hate the game, not the player, right? that. Im broke as and pissed off, I say let heads roll. Let the streets flood with blue blood. We Morlocs ought to remind the Eloi a thing or two about the terms of our contractual relationship.
Reply With Quote
Okay ChumpD... we all wanna know what you're laughing about..
