For Democracy to Work...

Great list. +^'d

I would let politicians point out what their opponent HAS done in the past especially with a "Truth in News " Law.

It is a good first step to acknowledge what "must" be done before attempting to fix something. This is less of a call to action, and more of a discussion focused on enlightenment and assessment.

Must is a word seldom used in discussions of enlightenment. Even the laws of physics are rarely framed with the word "must"

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Do you disagree with my post? Yes, in my opinion (do note), I believe all that I have stated are a "must" in order to preserve democracy. Does must necessarily mean what I said is factually correct? Absolutely not. As stated, I encourage those to disagree and comment on why (something you did not do).

Everything must obtain equilibrium. It doesn't HAVE to, but everything does. This also goes to show that must isn't an issue--everything is either is, sometimes, or is not within the realm of physics. Nothing "must" do anything in physics. So this isn't a good counter-argument.

Who are you to say what vocabulary is used within an enlightening discussion? Opinions are not absent within enlightening discussions (and thus must, requires, needs, wants, etc. are allowed and commonplace); closed minds, however, are absent.

In order for this conversation to be enlightening, it would prove beneficial for both you and me to rather than attack the equivocal aspects of my post, engage on a level of disagreement (or agreement) with regards to the bulk of the matter (subject, concept, etc.). In other words, you're running off topic and into irrelevancy. Most of the time, rudeness and sarcasm doesn't exactly breed enlightening conversations, either. But perhaps this post isn't enlightening--do you feel I'm cramming my opinion down your throat? Are you threatened? Do I need to throw in a few "needs", "should"s, and "in my opinion..."s?

Or perhaps "enlightening" isn't the correct word? In any case, this is trivial.

Yes: "Opinions are not absent within enlightening discussion"

But you have to have a bit more than opinion. Much more, or it's just philosophical emptiness.

You may want to support every must with lots of "why not" -- otherwise, you simply filter for the folks who are already in your choir. If you want to reach out, (and I think you do, but I could be wrong) you might also want to supply some reality in there.

All you have is conjecture amped up by the force of "must" (hey, I love conjecture, but I can't make it true just by decorating it with my gut)

Frankly, I think "philosophical emptiness" is an oxymoron.

"Why not" is implied--"must" is my opinion. I would find it safe to say that everyone on here takes the content of user comments with a grain of salt. Indicating "must", if anything, works against me. It forces me into a corner that may be easily arguable in rhetorical terms. Therefore, I stand to say I use "must" because I am confident in my opinion, which--once again--can still be challenged (yet to be).

I'm not quite sure I crave the insights of those who cannot get past the fact that I use "must" rather than "why not...". As I said, it's highly equivocal. I would nonetheless still listen.

All Martin Luther King, Jr. had was conjecture amped up by the force of "I have a dream..."

So, Jake, are you telling me that when you use the word "Must" that you are dreaming?

You made reference that "must" was not the right word to use - that I was just using it for effect--and perhaps I was...? Every writer uses words for the effect they have. You starting off your reply with "So," indicates an incredulous tone--an effect.

I am showing you that the emotion tied to "must" is used in a similar fashion as Martin Luther King's redundant, "I have a dream..." As you stated, I "amped up" my writing. For you to draw the conclusion that my usage of "must" is directly tied to the definitive usage of "I have a dream" is absurd. In no way did I imply or infer that relation.

I've got a question for you: do you actually disagree with what I actually make claim to--with what I say? Or are you just meandering about on the whimsical notion that I am some manipulative fool who doesn't understand how to use "must," properly, while at the same time assaulting the irrelevant aspects of a much more relevant issue?

I'm sorry, but I do not know how to express my strong opinions through writing without using words along the lines of "must". It goes beyond that, too, with the voice and tone of the writing. It appeared as though you took personal offense that I was trying to force you into something. For that I am sorry--I mean no threat on disillusioning your beliefs on what the principles of a democratic society are.

Ok, thanks for the question. Yes, I'm pretty much a stickler on languaging. Not from a spelling, or a grammar point of view, but from an emotional basis. language, and how we use it, is a fabulous tool. Glen Beck is a master of languaging and emotion. Notice what power words he uses and when. (Yes, I know it's like looking at poop through a magnifying glass -- you gotta stick your nose where the smell is worst.)

Each of your points in your posting is a passion of yours. I'm OK with you saying what you feel is important. My suggestions are NOT to change your point of view.

But for me, the word 'must' is like leading your statements with a fist of iron, and when I continue to read your words for supporting material, I find it lacking. You have an opinion, not a fact, or even a truth. Why must xxx be yyy? The frontal attack of "must," when not backed up by nearly mathematical logic, or at least a couple of beers, will likely not persuade me that yyy is necessary for xxx.

Whether it persuades others, I can't say.

Also as you mention, 'must' invites, or rather, demands a challenge. Without that challenge, your statement changes from opinion to accepted belief, and hence it is true. Those who would accept your statement without challenge will believe. If a person believes five of your points, then accepting one or two more is emotionally easy, and we all lose by not looking deeper.

You have quite a bit of activity already on this posting. I note your intelligence, passion, and commitment to supporting your views. I'm sure you have been able to wrestle with the challenges that other folks have brought up. That dialectic improves both your viewpoint and art of presentation.

I confuse my "passions" with "truths" a lot: Those who direct my attention to the difference usually receive a pretty cold response from me: Let me say I'm glad you show a bit more class.

As Bill and Ted told us:
Be excellent to each other, and party on dudes!

+^d GOOD idea

That looks awesome.

Altogether?

Uhhh yeah

how would that work?

which president are you talking about? Bush? maybe your too young to remember

No, if your so blind you can't tell he's talking about Osama, then you are beyond help. From one day to the next Obama will tell the public one thing and behind closed doors does just the opposite. This man if you even call him one has lie to the American public from day one, that's why his poll numbers reflect it. As long as he is in office there will be no Democracy, he hasn't a clue to the meaning of the word. Vote all these crooks out of office in Nov. while we still have a Country to call home. I'm not just talking about Democrats I am also talking about part of the Republicans, and Independents as well.

Which independent are you speaking of voting out?

Sorry, addie340, but that's not quite what I am saying; nor could it be that simple. I assume by "voting these crooks out of office" you mean throwing back in (probably) a majority leadership for Republicans. In any case, we still face the same problem. As I said, voting in and out doesn't change a whole lot. Our political population (those eligible to obtain a political position) is a very slim slice of society, and they are all more or less the same. We need to broaden who we put in office, and stop making an American Idol show out of the president.

I am not directly assaulting Obama--frankly, he hasn't had the chance to do anything in office without false democrats voting against any legislation. Furthermore, Bush was just as much (if not more) of a shining example of these presidential puppets I describe. In any case, I was speaking on behalf of nearly every president.

Also consider the possibility that some presidents are indeed attempting to look out for the people of the US, but in order to achieve what they want, they have to play by the rules of the political game, first, making themselves first look like traitors, but if they get their cards lined up right, could possibly invoke real change.

I'm not sure whether it has been done or not, but I would dictate grants to the education system in order to allow any citizen of the US to take ethics and political science classes free of charge--hell if I could, I'd pay them.

Man, you shouldn't just blindly attack people like that. It's a good way to make people like me hate you unconditionally. I know you just have love for your country, but jesus man have some respect for your leader (or the man we perceive as the leader). He made promises and gave us hope (which is exactly what we needed), but for some reason he has forsaken those promises. Do I blame him? HELL NO. We live in a country where one man is not is control. So in reality, he has no magnificent power that can save our country from peril. He has to deal with everyone else out to make a dollar and do as much as he can before people start to make threats against him. Plus you can't just "vote out the crooks" and start over. What if you vote in someone twice as corrupt and non-progressive? Things can always get worse.

more democracy now, in the past 2 years, then under the republicans.

Definitely more diplomacy.

"In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs for ever and ever."
-Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde was not just a poet & writer; he was quite the genius spectator.

"Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit."

["And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.]

-Charlemagne, 798

Alexander Hamilton at least had the good sense to get shot in head by the Vice President of the United States

good stuff Jan! FTH's

You have to excuse her, remember her hero in life is Al Gore, must I say more. When they finally admit that we are headed into another global cooling era, Al will change his BS and claim it is also created by humans. Jupiter is going through global warming, by the way did the humans there also cause that to happen Al. Maybe you can also make a few Millions off of that as well. Try practicing what you preach, he lives in a home with something like 20 bedrooms and 8 baths, and has the guts to tell us to be more energy efficient. He flies all over hell in his jet which puts out more emissions than hundreds of vehicles, then preaches to us about what to drive. This man is in this for one reason and on reason only THE MONEY, he is a hypocrite !!!! Sorry Jan I forgot you think he is the Messiah.

If Hamilton got his way, we would be a monarchy.

I still believe he was too aristocratic and intent on fomenting war to tear the new America apart to give ultimate control back to the British. Good thing Adams put him in his place. I think if he were alive today he would have been CEO of Goldman Sachs asking for a bailout.

But how to restore balance ? Years ago I would have agreed with you . I believed the people could restore balance within the existing framework . For decades I have watched multinationals grow ever more dominant over resources and people . I have been to a few protests and seen the power of the people slip away . Stop up the monetary system . If most of us , Stop mindlessly shopping , and I admit that will take some doing , in the form of strategic acquisition beforehand , we can take back out power . We must help each other . We can support local small businesses and deny any large criminal corporation their profit if we are very deliberate and vigilant . It is WE , who make them strong . We who suffer them to live . They would poison any dozen of us for their bottom line . Eventually , though , I think we shall have to be rid of the monetary system all together .http://zemerge.com/blog/

Hamilton was no fool
He created the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve

I do, however, on the other hand, harbour some hostility and resentment toward the man
mostly, i suppose because he had a life-long rivalry with the individual person throughout all of history who is, above all others, my personal idol, the one whom i consider to be the man i most admire:... Thomas Jefferson

http://truth.it

But we have something now that they back then did not have: the Internet. Instead of using it as a haven for pop culture and useless daily banter it needs to be used to disseminate information and truth. It actually is the last bastion of true freedom we have. This is why media outlets like Current are so important and why the original format of this station was essential to spreading that truth. We need to fight to keep that and also to use it as a conduit to the information people are not getting elsewhere. It is frustrating to now see that even sites that should be pushing truth are falling victim to the same distractionary tactics we see elsewhere in the media. Being a realist I do understand this is not going to be an easy task. But the founders fought against an empire and won.Perhaps we should take some lessons from them, and if we were to do that we would see that an informed participatory citizenry is what is needed now to provide that balance. I don't have the answer and cannot see the future. However, I do know for myself that this is something I will always do in order to help bring that balance. If we all take it upon ourselves to do this everyday regardless of where we are, the spark set off could may well be what ultimately turns it around. Corporations have too much control over the lives of the citizens and it is something Jefferson feared and warned us about. So in a way the democracy crisis we face is like the climate crisis in that we already have the tools we need to address it, we just need the will to implement them. It comes down to each and every one of us. We are the balance.

If people are not led around by corporate propaganda , then , yes they can be the balance . This will require much more than the superficial thought promoted by the farce substituted for actual culture . I started noticing it at the time of the O. J. Simpson Trials .... So far , the propaganda seems to be working . A good quarter cannot think our way out of a wet paper bag . It seems to me Education is key . I agree with you , This is a powerful tool , for good or ill . It is education . It is NOT in the corporate best interest for it to exist as it was intended . I wish us luck .

Thank you, kennymotown. I want people to add or edit what I have said--to DISCUSS the issues we face. I know there are many things I missed (or perhaps got wrong), but I'm just trying to break the barrier of ignorance for starters.

I caught myself saying, "For democracy to work..." a multitude of times in previous comments; so I decided to critically think about this issue, then post this sort of collage.

You done good Jake!

RIGHT ON. That,...is the human truth we EASILY EASILY forget,.....because we try to find "hope and certainty" in our fellow monkeys. Ooooooooooooops. Sorry. Jesus isn't home.

- - - - -how are YOU,...........going to fix that carburetor ? YOU,...are the hope.

....ol JAN fer gore,..........does have a point.

An absolutely amazing song. Very much related, too. Thank you.

FULL AGREEMENT. +^d

Very well said!

Good point.

This country will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis for the rest of its existence. That's my take on the matter. Things are much easier to break than to fix, and I am not sure this country has what it takes to fix everything.

We'll be able to put patches and get some things done. but the vast majority of the problems will be solved half-way. Full solutions have become impossible to implement in our deadlocked political system.

If you haven't liked the way things have gone on for the past two decades, then be prepared, because that's the way things are going to be for a long time.

I am afraid you are correct, where are our Thomas Jefferson's, and Thomas Payne's? This country does seem fucked with headlines like Lindsey Lohan going to jail again, is it by design because the forces of true evil, big money want us to stay stupid?

Those men are over 200 years away from us. That's how far. I truly believe that this country has become ungovernable from Washington.

It is like construction work in a busy urban highway intersection. You have to build over the mistakes of the past and doing it in a way that doesn't stop traffic. That is how things are now.

Some people reason that things would be much easier by just bulldozing the entire highway and building a new one from scratch, but that brings a lot more problems than it solves. That's my analogy.

With our advances in everything these days, I think the best way to solve the matter would be to break apart various sections of the country. Keeping this union together has become impossible.

i agree. various states hold so many different opinions on matters that it is almost unethical and unfair to bind them under one law

The Russian's predicted this too happen in America just as they foretold of their own breakup.

this is not to say that it must be a violent split. we could do the unthinkable: agree to disagree and live peacefully

It went pretty peacefully for the soviet union!

kenny , That is an idea worth considering . Change , without total destruction . Keep the good , cut what does not work loose . I do not doubt it would cause some armed conflict , if all regions did is simultaneously , they would stand a better chance . Depending on how well they each could prepare beforehand . Still , the real corporate overlords will want the resources , regardless . I think they are the real villains in this . I do not think this will be won with arms , but by people , turning their backs on them until they whither choke and die .

Some places would still need a revolution. The poor and minorities would be treated far worse in some places.

Yes, change we could believe in! The corporate fed mass consumerism is so entrenched in civilization these days, it's a huge obstacle I wish we could ditch!

Yes, drawing the border lines would take years and possible bloodshed! Something needs to happen soon.

Good analogy. Very good. I agree up to that "more problems than it solves",... point. When it comes to "bulldozing" though,.............well,.....show me the plan,....NOT ruling it out.

( not going to drink a lot of tequila and do it impromptu late Friday night.......)

I was thinking more along the lines of the good the federal government does in having civil right policies. Splitting up the country would guaranty discrimination in the South again. I'm not taking a side on this idea, just trying to understand the full ramifications of a split or multiple splits. Splitting apart the union could give the puppet-masters more fodder to trick the people into waging war against each other.

It's like in divorce , who gets the resources , water , the GOOD soil , Corporations would take advantage of people and stir up violence so they could profit off us . It would be so much easier if money were not involved , and we could swap resources without profiting off of every damn toothpick .....

Sorry , I didn't read your post , you are correct , didn't mean to repeat you .

No need for sorry. You added scope to this discussion.