It's not Bush's fault

[can't sit still]

Eric said;
"However- I still firmly believe that our top tax bracket should go way up. We have the lowest tax burden of all the developed countries, but too large a portion falls on those who can least afford it"

I believe that too much tax kills the economy

Eric, I found statistics that relate to a comparison between Sweden and US

The GDP per head is 30% lower in Sweden
The average annual GDP growth is 1.7% Sweden---3.1% US
Education spending-Sweden 8% GDP US 5% GDP
Health spending-Sweden 7.9% GDP US 12.9% GDP
Sweden has much higher taxes and much lower production per person.

There may be other factors, but I think that higher taxes lessen incentive.

The US has spent less on social programs while it was providing policing and security for the Western World. As belligerency decreases and the US requires Europe and the East to be responsible for their own security, we should see more "defence" money diverted to infrastructure and social programs.
Many people warn of the goldfish effect. If you put a goldfish in a bigger bowl---it grows bigger. Most organisms grow bigger and reproduce more when there are more resources available.
The argument is---if you give more money to people on welfare,,,they'll have more kids. The outcome would be to perpetuate welfare.

Here's a site that sheds a whole new light on intelligence.
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Arti ... gence.html
Dan

[Magikal]

And what have they produced? Right off hand, I can't name one product that comes from Sweden. Japan produces cameras, cars, computers. So do we. What does Sweden make?

Mostly small regional stuff you seem to have never heard of: SAAB, Volvo, Ericsson, IKEA, Electrolux, Absolut vodka (a personal favorite)......... *grin*

*Owtch!!!* OK, ya got me there...ya no good so-n-so #$^%$%*!!! Realized some hours after I posted this, "Hey, aren't Volvos made in Sweden?" So it goes... still contend crushing taxes DO NOTHING GOOD for incentive.

If this post doesn't stir things up, I'll have to go a bit deeper into my unlimited ability to get people wound up.

[Elemental666]

There may be other factors, but I think that higher taxes lessen incentive.

So it goes... still contend crushing taxes DO NOTHING GOOD for incentive.

Just an observation that these two opinions demonstrate... What if its not about lessening and growing. At somepoint there has to be a quality sweep. Taking out the trash, injecting those resources into the higher quality ideas and norms. You know you have to pay more for your gov't and hopefully through them your societies stability, so best to do it right the first time and not have to keep fucking with the foundation... This leads to a higher quality product, whether that product be a system of health care, a car, watch, system of law, etc.

At no point have I ever heard that life is supposed to be easy, and yet we strive for the easy life. Nature as a balanced system will not support the easy life without the hard life. Idea of eutopia seem to demand that the middle life is devoid of color and variation. And yet, its the middle life that gives the world its color and variation. Bell curve kinda thingy. The goal isn't to move from one end of the scale to the other but to deminsh the distance from those ends into a comfortable (to the majority) wave. Population control is built in, by our very nature. The more isolation to general populace, reguardless of the reason, will spur population booms on either side of the wall. One to fight for freedom, the other to shut them up. Thus is the nature of the world, embrace it with in reason. Chaos begets creativity to keep history moving down its course.

Another idea, dealing with the "Golden Rule", "He who has the gold, makes the rules." What if gold is devalued? Then it becomes what ever is most desirable. Well I for one desire the tangable necessities of life first and formost. What if I got a job and was paid with a house, one that was integrated with its ecosystem and only marginally dependant on infrastrure to sustain, complete with enough earth to grow a families worth of food? Just an idea, everything has holes that need to be filled and as we continue down histories path in the present, the nature of these holes will forever be changing.

now i've said too much

[can't sit still]

[quote="Elemental666"]

"" At somepoint there has to be a quality sweep. Taking out the trash, injecting those resources into the higher quality ideas and norms.""

666, your thoughts are all valid. But you're dancing on thin ice. A complete quality sweep includes Eugenics. No more pissing in the gene pool. I don't want to be standing next to you when you present your list of "trash". Those human "resources" that don't measure up are going to be quite irate when you tell them that their ideas and kids don't measure up.

""Do it right the first time""

That would be fine if we had divine guidance and all people had the same priorities and abilities.

"" This leads to a higher quality product, whether that product be a system of health care, a car, watch, system of law, etc. ""

I'm all for higher quality, but who's going to judge when the judges can't agree?

""At no point have I ever heard that life is supposed to be easy, and yet we strive for the easy life.""

We strive because we need and like to strive. If you dropped us in the Garden of Eden , we'd[men] all suicide after 3 weeks because we would be existing but not living.


"" Idea of eutopia seem to demand that the middle life is devoid of color and variation. ""

Utopia would be the death of our species. The masculine side is 100% directed to strive and conquer. If there wasn't some kind of risk and challenge to our life, we'd all drop into androgeny and wither away.


""Another idea, dealing with the "Golden Rule", "He who has the gold, makes the rules." What if gold is devalued""

Gold or paper just represent one's ability to obtain the necessities to survive or the luxuries to prosper. They weren't able to devalue gold so they changed to paper so that they could devalue your labor. Gold doesn't sweat out a resume or agonize over a C.V. We've been had and Gold is laughing. It's supply and demand. You supply labor and demand "Gold". Gold says "well I don't know, there's a lot of people who can do your job"
I don't want to depreciate your idea but you saw what happened in the computer industry. "Gold" said "hey, these people in India will work for less, so shove it for your salary requirements"

""grow a families worth of food?""

It is amazingly hard to have a homestead and feed yourself. It's worse in a cold climate [short growing season, firewood etc] You bust ass in the gardens, preserving, storing etc. You still end up producing extra to buy clothes, metals, etc. Forget college. Even the Amish have to buy outside stuff. Then you're right back into the economy.


"" Just an idea, everything has holes that need to be filled and as we continue down histories path in the present, the nature of these holes will forever be changing.""

It's ideas that bring change, so keep thinking.
now i've said too much[/quote]

Eric, I pointed out the differences in GDP and other things. I'd be the last person to claim that money and "things" bring quality of life. Our society is too fixed on accumulating wealth. We lose sight of "quality of life" and concentrate on getting more toys.
I've had ski boats and dune buggies and the rest. My attitude though has always been " screw ostentatious, I want to have fun".
Look at Japan. Their personal GDP is substantially higher than the US. So What, they're not having any fun. Japan and Sweden both have high suicide rates.
While I might debate you on the economy, that doesn't mean that I believe that a big economy and a shitpot of possesions are the ultimate personal quest. I recently moved from LA to a quiet log house at the edge of the woods next to the Cascades. Quality of life and preserving the enviornment were factors that I never interjected in our debates. That doesn't mean that I don't value them.
Dan

[Elemental666]

"666, your thoughts are all valid. But you're dancing on thin ice. A complete quality sweep includes Eugenics. No more pissing in the gene pool. I don't want to be standing next to you when you present your list of "trash". Those human "resources" that don't measure up are going to be quite irate when you tell them that their ideas and kids don't measure up."

But this already happens... not without its share of controversy, but for example look at the trends towards greener technology. Granted this is a day late and a dollar short, but for example purposes "taking out the trash" is a common occurance. Its not possible to satisfy everyone, so satisfy the majority, sometimes even against their will...

""Do it right the first time""

That would be fine if we had divine guidance and all people had the same priorities and abilities.

Again, this already happens. Sweden for example has turned out some of the best open source projects available. They are better because they take more time in design so the development is on the right course.

"" This leads to a higher quality product, whether that product be a system of health care, a car, watch, system of law, etc. ""

I'm all for higher quality, but who's going to judge when the judges can't agree?

Time and usefullness. Some the best products and services to emerge are now completely useless because their relevance is gone. This goes back to taking out the trash. We are still clinging to outdate goods and services that need to be scrapped. I realize this is a subjective view, but then its a subjective life...

""At no point have I ever heard that life is supposed to be easy, and yet we strive for the easy life.""

We strive because we need and like to strive. If you dropped us in the Garden of Eden , we'd[men] all suicide after 3 weeks because we would be existing but not living.

"" Idea of eutopia seem to demand that the middle life is devoid of color and variation. ""

Utopia would be the death of our species. The masculine side is 100% directed to strive and conquer. If there wasn't some kind of risk and challenge to our life, we'd all drop into androgeny and wither away.

I'd be careful with those kinds of sweeping generalizations. Not all men are hell bent on the command and conquer, progress for progress sake mentality. Some of us are quite content to enjoy the experience of life for what it is. My point, requarding Eutopia, was that becuase of several key pieces of literature and the requirement to read these pieces in most educational systems we have a firm idealogical image of what is meant by eutopia. To the point where expounding on that idea is dismissed as a pointless path. Serves example for several other key social ideas that are now tabu to futz with, like these forms of socialism and communism you are getting so in depth about. I'm not for Eutopia, but just arguing the point that our preconcieved notions of subject like Eutopia act like road blocks to the development of a useable idea...

""Another idea, dealing with the "Golden Rule", "He who has the gold, makes the rules." What if gold is devalued""

Gold or paper just represent one's ability to obtain the necessities to survive or the luxuries to prosper. They weren't able to devalue gold so they changed to paper so that they could devalue your labor. Gold doesn't sweat out a resume or agonize over a C.V. We've been had and Gold is laughing. It's supply and demand. You supply labor and demand "Gold". Gold says "well I don't know, there's a lot of people who can do your job"
I don't want to depreciate your idea but you saw what happened in the computer industry. "Gold" said "hey, these people in India will work for less, so shove it for your salary requirements"

I personaly think the study of economics is the most damaging development of the current age. It makes it far to easy to quantify things that should be qualified and visas versa. But the demon is already in play, so how do we battle that? By devaluing its prize? By proving the value of its prize is subjective? "Gold" was used metaphoircally, I understand that, but it has translated leterally into most societies. He who has the most toys wins. Its as true in the third world as it is in the US. I think the key is trying to change perception. Chances are its an un winable battle tho...

""grow a families worth of food?""

It is amazingly hard to have a homestead and feed yourself. It's worse in a cold climate [short growing season, firewood etc] You bust ass in the gardens, preserving, storing etc. You still end up producing extra to buy clothes, metals, etc. Forget college. Even the Amish have to buy outside stuff. Then you're right back into the economy.

Its not really that difficult to grow enough veggies for a family of 4-6, and I wasn't insuanting that the earth was to make us self sufficient, but healthier. Even in the most northern climates this can be done, and has been done for thousands of years, it just takes effort.

anyhow, I'm not as educated as I should be, and I haven't been to alot of the areas you all are discussing. But I have traveled enough to know that yuou can't judge a situation from thousands of miles away. This little nugget speaks volumes when it comes to perception. Ultimately, its up to people to make the best of their own world. Those that fail to do so will eventually become extinct and in there place a new breed will emerge, if you buy all that darwinian hullaballu anyhow...

Ok back to reading...

[can't sit still]

666, all of your ideas are well founded. As far as satisfying the majority against their will, that doesn't seem to work well except on a personal level. We have smoking laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws.
WE don't have the Kyoto accords, intelligent power production, ocean conservation, etc.
The "powers that be" are fine with limiting your freedoms,,,but not theirs.

"Time and usefullness will dictate the market"
Sounds good, but Maddison Avenue has other ideas. The Coke empire is built on selling you---colored sugar water. The water is good for you, the color--not so bad. Sugar [sucrose] is by definition,,,a poison.
The book "Sugar Blues" came out years ago. It proved conclusively that sugar is bad for you.
We're innundated with diabetes, ADD, obesity etc. Norway has a 110 yr baseline comparing sugar consumption to diabetes. Usefullness is loosing out to "chic"

Sugar is sweet, sugar sells products. Legal Drugs that kill, cars that roll over, 40.000 industrial chemicals that are harmful.
We're innundated with a "market" that is beyond knowing. "Big Money" increasingly feeds us products that are useless or harmful.
We're too swayed by ads, peer pressure, insecurity and GREED.
"Time" moved too slow in the case of tobacco, etc

"strive and conquer" can easily be [discover an elegant unified field theory] I AM definitely NOT talking about sacking and pillaging. I'm using it as a metaphor for holding on to a life purpose.

As far as the books on Utopia, I must have been absent on that day. In fact, I'm sure that I was absent that day. Seriously, I only went to college for 20 minutes. I walked in and didn't see any ONE thing that could hold my interest, so I turned around and walked out. I've studied innumerable things on my own, but I've not read anything on Utopia. I don't give a rats ass what conventional wisdom has to say about it either.

If you die a martyr for Islam, you go to your own private castle with 24 virgins. This is heaven???
Catholicism has you in heaven floating on a cloud playing a harp for all eternity. I'll pass.
I have no interest in finding out what antiquity believes utopia consists of.

Take our instinct to have the basic necessities of survival, take our desire for comfort, take our desire for respect,,,,,and then let the " AD MEN" magnify them beyond all limits and you end up with;
"He who has the most toys wins"
I'll pass
I live in a comfortable little log house and have a couple of old vehicles. I'm not trying to emulate Thoreau, but I won't be slave to the desire for elegant possesions. God, it sounds like I'm preaching. I'm only trying to find balance.

""It makes it far to easy to quantify things that should be qualified and visas versa. But the demon is already in play, so how do we battle that? By devaluing its prize""

Sorry, but here's where I catch the flak. There's a shortage of arable land. There's a shortage of clean water and clean air. There's a limit to natural resources and food.
There is no limit to humans!! The earth is diminishing,,,we're increasing.
Maybe a human SHOULD be qualified and not quantified. There's only 2 things here on this planet; humans and resources.

If you qualify "Homo Sapiens" against resources, HS loses out becauses he's increasing while resources are decreasing. He has less individual value.
If you qualify Homo Sapiens against other HS, you open a can of worms.
I'll open it right here.
Are all HS worth the same? Does the AIDS crackhead tweaker who keyed your car and poisoned your dog so he could steal your bike have the same value as Jonas Saulk?
If you say yes, you negate qualify. If you say no, you negate equality.

Let's discuss NO. We need to leave out spirituality for the moment.
What criteria would you use to judge one HS against another.
We need to be very careful about traditional Darwinian pressures. They tend to select more on the physical. The needs of society tend to concentrate more on the mental. Do we want to select for the needs of society? If you say yes, then we need to compare one HS's contribution to society to all other HS's contribution.
What are desireable traits? What are undesireable traits?
Who's going to be the final judge? How overtly or covertly are you going to "take out the trash"? Are you going to ask the CIA to facilitate drug supply?

The earth is taking quite a beating. We recently vaporized many tons of uranium projectiles in Iraq. We've loaded the atmosphere with radioactives again. Our background radiation and genetic mutation rate are increasing.
Diseases are more virulent and widespread. Human fertility is way down. We put hormones in the food and then wonder why breast cancer is up 7 fold. We need a society that doesn't shit in it's own nest. Our greed is runaway. Can we actually form a society that survives our innate desires?

And for extra credit on your final grade,,,,Does God exist?
Dan

[Elemental666]

Let's discuss NO. We need to leave out spirituality for the moment.
What criteria would you use to judge one HS against another.
We need to be very careful about traditional Darwinian pressures. They tend to select more on the physical. The needs of society tend to concentrate more on the mental. Do we want to select for the needs of society? If you say yes, then we need to compare one HS's contribution to society to all other HS's contribution.
What are desireable traits? What are undesireable traits?
Who's going to be the final judge? How overtly or covertly are you going to "take out the trash"? Are you going to ask the CIA to facilitate drug supply?

The earth is taking quite a beating. We recently vaporized many tons of uranium projectiles in Iraq. We've loaded the atmosphere with radioactives again. Our background radiation and genetic mutation rate are increasing.
Diseases are more virulent and widespread. Human fertility is way down. We put hormones in the food and then wonder why breast cancer is up 7 fold. We need a society that doesn't shit in it's own nest. Our greed is runaway. Can we actually form a society that survives our innate desires?

And for extra credit on your final grade,,,,Does God exist?
Dan

Extra Credit first: If you believe God exists then he does, if you don't then he doesn't. Much like VooDoo and the like, if no spiritual energy is put into a belief it ceases to be. Ultimately the only way to answer this qeustion is to die and find out for yourself...

Comparing HS to HS is like comparing Apples to Apples... Which makes a better pie, Granny Smith or Golden Delicious? I agree with your points on greed running rampant and Big Business disreguarding the welfare of their markets so they can post bigger profits. Which were I'm trying to make the point of quantifying what should be qualified. Our leaders and economic helmsmen are no longer concerned with the quality of life that results from their actions. The mentality is, "Who cares if they get hurt or die, they multiply like rats!" Human fertility being down may very well be a result of not just what we, as humans, are doing to ourselves, but the fact that we are growning beyond our resources. Its not uncommon for other species to experience low birth rates when they outgrow there environment, why not with humans too?

Anyway, you can't kill off greed, its like declaring a war on terror. YOU CAN NOT DEFEAT AN EMOTION! So, in my humble opinion the question isn't how to save western society, but how to avoid another Dark Age when western society does ultimately fail. Much like the Greek/Roman downfall cast the world into chaos.

Also I think one of the main issues hindering todays global community is the lack of spiritual focus. This doesn't have to mean a national religion or even a religious focus. We has humans in everyday life should be seeking a balance between the true holy trinity, Physical, Mental and Spiritual health. When one suffers they all suffer. The seperation of Church and State in the US is useful for keeping us out of a Church-State regiem, but harmful when ethics and morals are cast asside as a result. Reguardless of who your god is, that spiritual connection needs to be permiated through EVERY facet our lives. IF you an athiest, then god for you, you are a decided minority and shouldn't be forced to choose a god, however that doesn't excuse you from acting ethically and being of sound moral judgement. Who decides what is and isn't ethical? History and your neighbors...

[can't sit still]

""Extra Credit first: If you believe God exists then he does, if you don't then he doesn't. Much like VooDoo and the like, if no spiritual energy is put into a belief it ceases to be.""
I'm having a little trouble with this one.
I believe that there was an experiment that proved that your body loses a few grams when you die. Your body operates on electricity. You have an electrical field. After you die, you don't have an electrical field. The field departs your body. Does this field stay cohesive or does it disapate? Is it "gone" if it disapates?
Let's assume that it stays cohesive. Let's assume that it joins the "Big Field" ,,,the "Force" of Star Wars. I believe that this "joining" would happen wether you believed in it or not. I tend to think that if "god" exists, she doesn't care if you believe or not. Yes, unknowable


""Ultimately the only way to answer this question is to die and find out for yourself...""
I'm not in any hurry for this little revelation.

""Comparing HS to HS is like comparing Apples to Apples... Which makes a better pie, Granny Smith or Golden Delicious? I agree with your points on greed running rampant and Big Business disreguarding the welfare of their markets so they can post bigger profits. Which were I'm trying to make the point of quantifying what should be qualified. Our leaders and economic helmsmen are no longer concerned with the quality of life that results from their actions. The mentality is, "Who cares if they get hurt or die, they multiply like rats!" Human fertility being down may very well be a result of not just what we, as humans, are doing to ourselves, but the fact that we are growning beyond our resources. Its not uncommon for other species to experience low birth rates when they outgrow there environment, why not with humans too?""
It's also blamed on birth-control pill hormones getting into the water table and nuetralizing men.

""Anyway, you can't kill off greed, its like declaring a war on terror. YOU CAN NOT DEFEAT AN EMOTION! So, in my humble opinion the question isn't how to save western society, but how to avoid another Dark Age when western society does ultimately fail. Much like the Greek/Roman downfall cast the world into chaos.""

That's a heck of a question. I'll take a pass and give it some thought. It would be good mental exercise for me since my brain is getting attrophied from lack of use.

""Also I think one of the main issues hindering todays global community is the lack of spiritual focus. This doesn't have to mean a national religion or even a religious focus. We has humans in everyday life should be seeking a balance between the true holy trinity, Physical, Mental and Spiritual health. When one suffers they all suffer.""

I agree 100% and you've stated it very well.


""Reguardless of who your god is, that spiritual connection needs to be permiated through EVERY facet our lives. IF you an athiest, then god for you, you are a decided minority and shouldn't be forced to choose a god, however that doesn't excuse you from acting ethically and being of sound moral judgement. Who decides what is and isn't ethical? History and your neighbors..""
This is all very well stated and very necessary.

I believe that mankind as a species is in his adolesence. We are getting smarter. I believe that the smarter you are,,,,the harder it is to run from logic. The more logic and intelligence that is applied to a situation,,, the more likely you are to get a good outcome.

You can compare it to marriage. A man's biological imperative is to spread his genes to as many receptive females as he can. Monogamous Marriage is against his basic nature. He uses his intellect to control his passions. Substitute intellect for greed and envy,etc. and you should get a better outcome for the species.

You're doing great with the debate 666. But where's Eric and Magikal??
We need a womans input to keep us from going off the deep-end.
Dan

[can't sit still]

Elemental, we agree that the value of HS is being steadily devalued. Capital is one of the biggest culprits. You posted that we need to pay attention to the trinity. I think that our leaders need this far more than the individual. Because of their position of power, their lack of morality causes far more evil than an individual's would. I imagine that GB thinks that he's just moral as shit. It seems like each individual just keeps getting squeezed smaller and smaller.

Here's an old story, You may have already seen it. It's a good overview none the less.
Dan

The Ghost of Vice President Wallace Warns: "It Can Happen Here"
by Thom Hartmann (07-19-04)

The Republican National Committee has recently removed from their website an advertisement interspersing Hitler's face with those of John Kerry and other prominent Democrats. This little-heralded step has freed former Enron lobbyist and current RNC chairman Ed Gillespie to resume his attacks on Americans who believe some provisions of Bush's PATRIOT Act, his detention of American citizens without charges, his willingness to let corporations write legislation, and the so-called "Free Speech Zones" around his public appearances are all steps on the road to American fascism.

The RNC's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and Democrats was short-lived, but it brings to mind the first American Vice President to point out the "American fascists" among us.

Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's Vice President when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman President), Roosevelt had two previous Vice Presidents - John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945). In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" - the definition Mussolini had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)

As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism"

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.

In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" - the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

Vice President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:


" If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. ... They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead."
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who had run for political office, and, in Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead of corporate cartels. "American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information.."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel "It Can't Happen Here," a conservative southern politician is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician - Buzz Windrip - runs his campaign on family values, the flag, and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American. When Windrip becomes President, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.

As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary [of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy." And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,' which nickname was generally used."

Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book "It Can't Happen Here." And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler. These events all, no doubt, colored Vice President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:


" Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases."
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state."

Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies, feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly defined as "rule by the rich."

Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his new book "What's The Matter With Kansas" that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle America - 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."

The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." He added, "Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself."

But American fascists who would want former CEOs as President, Vice President, House Majority Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working people. Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.

In a comment prescient of George W. Bush's recent suggestion that civilization itself is at risk because of gays, Wallace continued:


" The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination..."
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations - who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media - they could promote their lies with ease.

"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added, "They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."

This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies are broken up under the 1881 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal (and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).

As Wallace's President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, "...out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties.... It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction.... And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man...."

Speaking indirectly of the fascists that Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt brought the issue to its core: "These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power."

But, he thundered in that speech, "Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!"

In 2004, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted during the Great Depression and World War II. Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "compassionate conservatism." The RNC's behavior today eerily parallels the day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for."

It's particularly ironic that the CEOs and lobbyists who run the Republican National Committee would have chosen to put Hitler's fascist face into one of their campaign commercials, just before they launched a national campaign against gays and while they continue to arrest people who wear anti-Bush T-shirts in public places.

President Roosevelt and Vice President Wallace's warnings have come full circle. Which is why it's so critical that this November we join together at the ballot box to stop this most recent incarnation of feudal fascism from seizing complete control of our nation.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk radio show. www.thomhartmann.com. His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," and "We The People: A Call To Take Back America." His new book, "What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return To Democracy," based on four years of research in Jefferson's personal letters, begins shipping this week from Random House/Harmony.

[joel the ornery]

soooo, who are you voting for in the '06 congressional elections?

[can't sit still]

Sorry Joel, I can't give you an answer. It seems that if you vote your concience, green, libertarian, humanist or whatever,,,it becomes a spoiler vote for the Dems or GOP.
I'm not really very astute when it comes to Polysci. It seems like such a dirty business with no accountability, that it only inspires disgust, apathy and dirty dealings.
I would try to vote some ying and some yang but it's just not offered.
If I try to judge a candidate by his voting record,,,,he becomes a chameleon. You can always count on him[or her] to follow the money,,,,but whose' money??
The candidates are generally so polarized that legislative gridlock is a way of life.
Few politicians will put the welfare of America ahead of their personal agenda. Yes, I'm disillusioned. It's not likely that I'll vote.
I have friends that felt so disgusted that they just packed up and left the country.
I wish that I could vote for somebody good. The usual choice is to vote for the lesser of two evils,,,,,sorry
Dan

[joel the ornery]

actually, it was a rhetorical question, answered nicely i might add.

[can't sit still]

I didn't want to interrupt the "politics" thread so I put this here.
It's worth thinking about.

It is not about race, this is class warfare.

I am normally a Republican. I am always a conservative and politically I am a fiscal conservative. They have always stood for practicality, wisdom, fiscal caution and freedom. Now it seems they stand for adventerousness, church in government, social experimentation, vindictiveness, secret government and run away spending. I do not recognise todays Republicans.
When I don't like someone, when they really get me mad, my response is to understand them. Unfortunately, then I usually have trouble simply being mad at them, I am usually sympathetic. Not in G. Bush's case though.
Still, I do understand him to a large degree and I understand much of what he thinks. I just strongly disagree. There are a ton of ways to describe why G. Bush has no respect for anyone but the very rich. I will try to illustrate a few.
A main point of his beliefs is that the wealthy are the best at preserving the wealth of the nation. Not only is that very questionable, but there is far more to the wealth of a nation than just the economic wealth. There is the human wealth as well, but he does not recognize that. (Neither does big business apparently). This is why he is trying to transfer as much wealth to the wealthy as he can. Frankly, this marriage of government and business is distinctly flirting with fascism.
G. Bush, like many others of his class, has enjoyed the great independence given by his wealth and does not recognize the interdependency of the people of a society. A carpenter sees a nail as the solution. A capitalist sees capital as the solution. They do not see that more is required. As such, he has no respect for the middle class that are actually the ones that have built this nation. This is like the old story of the parts of the body claiming who was in charge. The brain said it thinks so it is in charge. The feet said it can go nowhere with out feet, so they were in charge. The eyes said they were in charge because the body could do nothing without seeing. The hands said it feeds the body so it was in charge, etc. etc. The butt said it was in charge. It closed down, the eyes went bleary, the brain hurt, the feet tripped, etc. etc. The moral of the story is that we are all in this together. If you do not recognize that truth, then you must put down and denigrate the rest. That is what G Bush does.

The old work-force compact is in shreds. Paychecks that rose with productivity gains through the middle decades of the 20th century no longer do so. Since the early 1970's, national product per person has grown more than 75 percent, but the median wage of male workers has risen barely two cents, adjusted for inflation, from $15.24 in 1973 to just $15.26 last year. Family incomes are up only because wives have gone into paid work and everyone's putting in more hours. Job loss often means loss of health insurance and a tax-advantaged pension. (Thanks to Robert Reich, former secretary of labor) The wealthy have tended to have their wealth in that time increase by factors.

I've heard the story of Womb to Tomb welfare. Uh, I don't know anyone who had been on welfare. We've learned and welfare like that no longer exists. We have learned the weakness of welfare and have responded. As fo me, I've paid taxes every year since I was 16. I've heard the stories about the people that get 5 weeks of vacation. I don't of know any... other than perhaps G. Bush. Heck, I tend to be up for more jury duty than vacation.

Look, this goes on and on. G. Bush and a lot of people in power consider themselves infinitely more important than the people they rule... oh, forgot, that is lead. No, that is what they forget. The greatest human accomplishment is done by cooperation. That is what FDR set in place to drag us out of the disaster of the depression. Individuality is fine and important (I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand and I am very creative (I also know the critical flaw in her philosophy)), but it must not be carried to an extreme that defeats the great accomplishments of cooperation. This is what G Bush is doing. He sees no value to those that are not wealthy and he has contempt for them. He is destroying the balance of our society.
There are people that think they live outside of society and think they have total control of their lives and who refuse to see how their actions or inactions may impact someone else, but it is unavoidable. It is the excuse they use to justify their claim that their greed is victimless.


***
By what standard?

I'm not talking about people with a negative cash flow. I clearly said the working class. Folks who pay a lot of taxes every year. Folks like me that have to change careers periodically to keep working and like me, who have to constantly get an education to stay competitive. I include most entrapenuers in this both because their economic status, (they are not the wealthy and are effected by what effects the middle class) and they do not try to game the system using legal manuevers. Actually, I'm a bad example, because I could easily have started a business a number of times, but have other demands that have precluded that.
I'm not talking about entrepreneurs that start businesses with their own sweat and creativity. I'm in demand by them (or was until outsourcing. Now I don't know what to do) because I am the kind of person that can build their businesses and have done it repeatedly... and ya know what, they can't build their businesses without people like me. Don't you think I should be able to make a living? Can only a business owner afford to raise a family? Both my wife and I are professionals, but we aren't doing that well and we make more money than a lot of people. I haven't had a full weeks vacation in years. I get 4 days this year (including the weekend). I don't dive much, because I just don't spend money on what's not needed. Admittedly a lot of money goes to the kid's school, but that is what we consider our priority and with two parents working, there isn't a lot of choice. And that is the measure. That must be the standard. If it becomes too costly for the middle class to raise children, then there is a problem. Any society that does not consider child raising to be its main business is doomed. It used to be that a family only needed one person working. Now, most need two. We have and are creating a society that is not viable. Many people do not have children for that reason. Russia and Japan are already so bad that no one is having kids. European and American population are only staying up because of immigration.
Some people say that the entrepreneurs should be rewarded because they have the guts to risk all to achieve that which has made America great. Are they including Kenny Boy Lay and the rest of the Enron crowd or Donald Trump with his multiple bankrupsies? The wealthy never miss a meal. It's not their money they risk. It is the great middle class that leads the life of quiet desperation who has become a victim. By this standard, most entrepreneurs fall into this group.
So who is the culprit? It isn't the entrepreneurs. It has to do with the system. Why are the price of drugs non-negotiable? Why have the oil companies basically never lost a law suit? Most entrepreneurs have never used a lobbyist, but for the bigger businesses, that is the best way to make money. Who does the recent huge energy bill benefit? Who is going to get hurt by its short sightedness. Capitalism is the theory of using capital as a tool of productivity. Too often now it is simply used as a bludgeon to manipulate and protect markets. The drug companies can make more money off making slight variations of old drugs to keep their old patents rather than being innovative. Disney makes more money working to get their 50 year old trademarks protected than making new imaginative movies. The medical industry does not do cost effectiveness studies. That might lose them money. Why was the last law passed on fuel efficiency for vehicles completely toothless and ineffective? Why do CEOs get to make sweetheart deals that make themselves millionaires off of other peoples money even when they don't perform. Admittedly, it's not just the politicians and business leaders who are guilty, but they both manipulate the system to keep their power and avoid accountability. Ever hear of Gerrymandering? They love divisive issues so that they can manipulate the electorate. The abortion issue is the best thing that has ever happened to the Republicans. The Republicans love illegal immigrants. It keeps wages down. Is this supposed to be a third world country for all but the rich. It's obvious that the rich are getting richer and everyone else is falling behind. What ever happened to the concept of the rich being the stewards of the wealth of the nation? Now they are the rulers and want to be modern day kings. We threw out the kings for good reason. It was these same current wild free market ideals that led to the Great Depression. Who is the deficit going to hurt? Not the wealthy. It will hurt the middle class and their children.
Then there is the very system itself. Offshoring simply removes jobs. College degrees are getting worthless. All my years of experience and education do not easily get me a decent job. I know, tough luck, but the pipeline is drying up. What about the future? The way we are going there is not going to be a future. Why learn to be an engineer or to create? You're better off manipulating the existing mass of wealth than creating new wealth, but that will only go on so long and it requires more and more at the bottom to support the concentration of wealth at the top. That doesn't just effect the middle class. The children of the rich will face the same problems. The pipeline will dry up for all.

****

There can be a balance. I have nothing against the wealthy, but I think the society must allow a hardworking person to support a family. We cannot survive in a situation with no security. They say most millionaires have been made by real estate speculation. Fine, but not so fine when housing becomes unaffordable. Can't we make medicine efficient enough that people can afford it? Can't we plan for some long term instead of the next quarters profit if that short term goal is going to preclude a livable future?
Why couldn't Bush have come out and said 'I see trouble coming. We can best protect America's future if we work towards energy independence'. No, he's busy taking care of big oil and big coal. I believe America is the land of opportunity for all without the scales tipped towards the filthy rich at the expense of families and hard working people. The system is so amazingly destructive. The last stock meltdown was caused by abuse of Capital. The next one, a big one, will be caused by glorification of Capital.

Well, reality is that we can feed and clothe our children. Those are cheap enough. But affordable housing, medicine, education and a good job for our children, a future, are simply not forecast for the middle class or most business owners. And very often the seeds of the destruction of a family are sown by wealth. There are few things as dangerous to a family as wealth.

You say offer something better. A balance would do. We have a system that can provide survival and growth for families. It is the essence of Western Culture. I have described that system. Given time, I will think we can come up with something new. We can do better than we have and certainly better than what G. Bush is creating. He is heading us to a Feudalism. The natural result of unregulated Capitalism is Monopoly. The study of Chaos Theory says the same thing, wealth will naturally concentrate in one place.

Sure, no matter how much the politicians and corporations manipulate the system, we are all responsible. Still, if we have created a system that cannot endure and that is not viable, we must look at our leaders in great askance. Since before history, societies have always relied on their leaders for wise decision and direction. Our leadership has shown itself to be dishonest and incompetent. Political appointments are the norm, but our present leadership has completely packed the stewards of the vital institutions this society relies on with political cronies whose only qualification is unswerving loyalty to the party in power. Certainly their first loyalty is not to America or the American citizens.
We are going to have more disasters like New Orleans. It is completely inevitable. In this day and in the future we are going to have to plan on it and plan for it. This is what nations are about. We work together when the nation is stricken. We can fight a war on two fronts, but we seem unable to manage natural disasaters that are more inevitable.
The world is changing rapidly and is going to change radically in the near future. We need visionary leadership. Instead, we have small, shortsighted, foolish leadership.


Perhaps Bush does not hate those who are not rich (perhaps), but he does not respect them or know their worth.

So what is the problem and solution? Sorry, the problem is us. David Brin mentioned what he thought were the primary memes of the world. Meme is not a popular term, because of the strange connotations given by the primary people studying them, but they do have value if they explain something. I think here they can be useful. See if you can recognise where these are refering to. David Brin mentioned what he thought were the primary memes of the peoples of the world. The first three are easy to identify. They are Paranoia, Conformaty, Chauvanism, Feudalism and Otherness. He said Feudalism just seems to repeatedly crop up and he probably meant that Otherness refered to the thinking people of Western Culture. I will add to this a meme of greed. That is what we are currently dealing with and what is leading us to disaster. So what meme can save us now and in the future. Only by cooperation can humanity survive and thrive. What meme can lead to that? It is the meme of love. That is the only value that can create a stable society

[Lady V]

(tiptoeing in...)

I worked years ago on a large study which found that the U.S. elects (since...when? can't remember... 1940s? 50s?) presidents in a predictable order: narcissist, paranoid, narcissist, paranoid, etc.

[diane o'thirst]

CSS, have you checked out the NationStates website yet? Anyone here familiar?

I signed on a few months ago and created the Nomadic Peoples of Sonnveld. When I first built the country, we were an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Your nation develops through first Issues; you can choose to receive one a day, two a day, one per workday, two per workday, or none. I chose two per day.

Oh boy, has Sonnveld gone through a lot of changes! One day when I legislated for a ubiquitous police force throughout the population, Sonnveld suddenly became a Corrupt Dictatorship! I took it as something of an affront but reminded myself that this was just a game, and I'd seen countries that were worse. Okay, I was a corrupt dictatorship. But, the people had a lot of civil liberties and our environment was the toast of the region. Corrupt dictatorship is bad but it's preferable to, say, Corporate Hegemony or Insane Tyrant. It was corrupt, not brutal...except to the Violetists who demanded human sacrifice on live television and Neo-Nazis who tried to hold a rally in our capitol city (if a millions-strong nomadic tribe can be said to have anything like that).

Through a winding course of issues, Sonnveld went from Corrupt Dictatorship to Democratic Socialists, a brief stint back to Inoffensive Centrist Democracy before a dive into Left-Leaning College State, and is currently toggling back and forth between that and Democratic Socialists. Never thought I'd be the Premier Chancellor of a socialist state. Civil liberties, environmental brilliance and social equality have all remained high. Economy's read like a rollercoaster but nobody's starving or homeless.

Of course, this is all academic because it's a game, and one based on a satirical novel at that. Still, it's an interesting way to see exactly how your personal beliefs and politics would play out in a semi-real world slate. Here's the link if you'd like to check it out:

http://www.nationstates.net

My nation:

http://www.nationstates.net/sonnveld

[Kinetic IV]

I'm not giving away the name I use but I've been playing on there for over a year now. I (heart) NationStates!

[can't sit still]

Diane, that's fascinating about building a nation. You change variables on imput and wait for the outcome. A nice learning process.
Unfortunately for us, the vast majority of our leaders are not versed in history or geo-politics.
What's worse, our leaders refuse to learn from the mistakes of others. It's all driven by EGO with no reference to reality.

Kinetic IV, you say that you've been playing for a year. Does the game allow you to reach stability? Can you change variables like greed or health?

Lady V, don't tiptoe,,,,jump right in. The water's fine. We're all equal and all[almost] friendly.
You said narcissist or paranoid. Can I assume that philanderer was a constant?

[can't sit still]

Bush is a snake,,, first, foremost and always. He's now becoming a deluded useless snake. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200 ... ge_w_bush/
His only possible usefullness that remains is to be made a publicly humiliated snake. This would maybe a reminder to other sociopaths that snakes are to be stepped on. Dan

[can't sit still]

Near the bottom of this page is a priceless collection of pics of GWB and comparison pics of apes.
http://forum.globalhousepricecrash.com/ ... =0&start=0

[can't sit still]

Just in case you think that 8 years isn't enough;
"In addition to the Bush presidential library, the Bush Foundation is seeking to establish at the university a controversial partisan institute devoted to “promoting the views of George W. Bush on international and domestic matters,â€

[theCryptofishist]

My mother will be glad to hear that they let Marvin out of his basement. Maybe it's groundhog day thing.

[Ugly Dougly]

I can see that you are all interested in being productive little citizens.

[can't sit still]

It seems that Bush is in the news again;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nator.html

[Simon of the Playa]

as a cuban fascist with a taste for eugenics, i find this whole topic fascinating.

[can't sit still]

Ahhhh, the good old days;
"Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... e_gap.html

[ygmir]

[youtube][/youtube]