Topic: End of Democracy... anyone care??

[edbikerii]

Oh, and apparently the media bias is not such a "conspiracy theory".  It is so widespread that even The Onion makes jokes about it (quite funny, too):

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/media_having_trouble_finding_right

In the end, bias in the educational system and the media make campaign contributions irrelevant.  How much MORE MONEY can Hollywood spend trying to promote democrats in America?

There is still hope.  Despite all of the media's efforts, Obama's, Pelosi's, Frank's, Reid's, etc. policies have proven to be very unpopular, resulting in the Republican (or simply NOT DEMOCRAT) victories in MA, NJ and VA.

Being a "rock star" can only get you so far.

[BobbyR]

Yeah, I wrote to both my senators, Lautenberg (D) and Menendez (D), from New Jersey, about healthcare, and I got back form letters outlining the DNC's talking points.  No consideration whatsoever was given to the very real concerns I wrote them about.

I imagine it would be different if I wrote again today.  Perhaps now that the supermajority is broken, our senators just might think about listening to the constituents.

I've spent time (weeks) in the UAE, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Germany for work. NOT vacation. I also have very good friends who are native to Israel, Greece, England, Ireland, Vietnam, Japan, Iceland, Canada, Russia, Africa, India... Just saying I actually do know what it's like on the other side of the border in a limited way. Btw, they all moved and stayed here for a reason. Although the US has numerous flaws, I can say from first hand experience we have it better than most. So, while "home" may always seem better, there is a reason why people of these countries move here and stay. I'm just sayin.

I would argue that most of what is broken in American politics is not the system but rather the ignorance of the constituents. Most people have no idea what their elected officials are actually doing for them. We have the ability to vote for people we like, or vote others out of power.

I can say that Senator Lugar from IN has responded to all 4 of my letters. Not himself personally of course, but more than just a "thank you for your concern" letter. Real, thoughtful, and responses with his ink signature. On one occasion I even got a phone call. I sent Evan Bayh the same 4 letters and didn't hear a word from him, until this week when I got a campaign letter from him. I'll bet you know who I'm voting for next election...

Writing your elected officials may seem futile, but it is not. I was very active in politics at one time and this is how it works. A staffer reads what you wrote and simply checks off a PRO or CON list. They use the 1 =300 formula which means about if one constituent feels compelled to write 300 feel the same way and don;t write. You will receive a form letter back, but you opinion is recorded.

[Rocking-M]

Writing your elected officials may seem futile, but it is not. I was very active in politics at one time and this is how it works. A staffer reads what you wrote and simply checks off a PRO or CON list. They use the 1 =300 formula which means about if one constituent feels compelled to write 300 feel the same way and don;t write. You will receive a form letter back, but you opinion is recorded.

Good to know Bobby, I've written many times and even blanket email the State House on occasion.

[edbikerii]

Yeah, Bobby, PRO/CON is better than nothing, but still doesn't get across the point.  The senators/congressmen have not thought of everything and there are ideas out here that they should be listening to.  It is not black/white or pro/against.

Yeah, I wrote to both my senators, Lautenberg (D) and Menendez (D), from New Jersey, about healthcare, and I got back form letters outlining the DNC's talking points.  No consideration whatsoever was given to the very real concerns I wrote them about.

I imagine it would be different if I wrote again today.  Perhaps now that the supermajority is broken, our senators just might think about listening to the constituents.

I've spent time (weeks) in the UAE, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Germany for work. NOT vacation. I also have very good friends who are native to Israel, Greece, England, Ireland, Vietnam, Japan, Iceland, Canada, Russia, Africa, India... Just saying I actually do know what it's like on the other side of the border in a limited way. Btw, they all moved and stayed here for a reason. Although the US has numerous flaws, I can say from first hand experience we have it better than most. So, while "home" may always seem better, there is a reason why people of these countries move here and stay. I'm just sayin.

I would argue that most of what is broken in American politics is not the system but rather the ignorance of the constituents. Most people have no idea what their elected officials are actually doing for them. We have the ability to vote for people we like, or vote others out of power.

I can say that Senator Lugar from IN has responded to all 4 of my letters. Not himself personally of course, but more than just a "thank you for your concern" letter. Real, thoughtful, and responses with his ink signature. On one occasion I even got a phone call. I sent Evan Bayh the same 4 letters and didn't hear a word from him, until this week when I got a campaign letter from him. I'll bet you know who I'm voting for next election...

Writing your elected officials may seem futile, but it is not. I was very active in politics at one time and this is how it works. A staffer reads what you wrote and simply checks off a PRO or CON list. They use the 1 =300 formula which means about if one constituent feels compelled to write 300 feel the same way and don;t write. You will receive a form letter back, but you opinion is recorded.

[tramp]

two tired
i guess we just have agree to disagree
glad to hear that you do keep up with your reps

[BobbyR]

Yeah, Bobby, PRO/CON is better than nothing, but still doesn't get across the point.  The senators/congressmen have not thought of everything and there are ideas out here that they should be listening to.  It is not black/white or pro/against.

Yeah, I wrote to both my senators, Lautenberg (D) and Menendez (D), from New Jersey, about healthcare, and I got back form letters outlining the DNC's talking points.  No consideration whatsoever was given to the very real concerns I wrote them about.

I imagine it would be different if I wrote again today.  Perhaps now that the supermajority is broken, our senators just might think about listening to the constituents.

I've spent time (weeks) in the UAE, China, Mexico, Egypt, and Germany for work. NOT vacation. I also have very good friends who are native to Israel, Greece, England, Ireland, Vietnam, Japan, Iceland, Canada, Russia, Africa, India... Just saying I actually do know what it's like on the other side of the border in a limited way. Btw, they all moved and stayed here for a reason. Although the US has numerous flaws, I can say from first hand experience we have it better than most. So, while "home" may always seem better, there is a reason why people of these countries move here and stay. I'm just sayin.

I would argue that most of what is broken in American politics is not the system but rather the ignorance of the constituents. Most people have no idea what their elected officials are actually doing for them. We have the ability to vote for people we like, or vote others out of power.

I can say that Senator Lugar from IN has responded to all 4 of my letters. Not himself personally of course, but more than just a "thank you for your concern" letter. Real, thoughtful, and responses with his ink signature. On one occasion I even got a phone call. I sent Evan Bayh the same 4 letters and didn't hear a word from him, until this week when I got a campaign letter from him. I'll bet you know who I'm voting for next election...

Writing your elected officials may seem futile, but it is not. I was very active in politics at one time and this is how it works. A staffer reads what you wrote and simply checks off a PRO or CON list. They use the 1 =300 formula which means about if one constituent feels compelled to write 300 feel the same way and don;t write. You will receive a form letter back, but you opinion is recorded.

This is true. The sad fact is most people write them about voting for or against a certain bill. To say they are not interested in your ideas would be unfair, but they are lobbied so heavily in person, they don't have time. They do read letters to the Editor at the lower levels, like Town and County. State and Federal they spend more time fundraising and catering to large groups, so people like us do not get some time. I wish I were wrong, but I saw it up close and personal at the State and local level. I did not like what I saw.

[TwoTired]

two tired
i guess we just have agree to disagree
glad to hear that you do keep up with your reps

Wait a minute...  I came here to argue!!  

As to the reps.  Since I can't seem to vote them out, the least I can do is give them an earful.  Pity that when you actually look into one of their ears, you see a terrific panorama of whatever happens to be on the other side of their head.  Usually, what you see is more interesting than the babble that leaks out of their mouths.
But, I'm probably being too kind.  

P.S.  You know it's a bad country when there is a mass exodus of people trying to leave it.

[bucky katt]

the only place i've ever been that i liked as much as here in the US was ireland, the people i met and the places i went were just fantastic. in fact the only thing i didnt like was the fact i couldnt own a handgun if i lived there.

[BobbyR]

In 1995 I became a Italian Citezen. I was born in the US, but I took advantage of the  "Right of Blood" provision of Italian law. Once I was able to document Grandparents and Great Grandparents birth, Italy considers me a born Italian not Naturalized. This avoids conflict with with my US Passport. The right extends to my wife also.

I can live in any EU Country I choose. My wife and I explored all of the likely places after I retired. It took a year for us to figure out we were Americans. While we met very nice people and were treated well, we realized that we were Americans and we took our American Passports out and came back.

I had real problems with the US after Nam, but we are essentially Yanks. Spain was very tempting, we will probably die here.

I thought leaving would be easy, but it was not. So we will live here on our own terms.     

[bucky katt]

In 1995 I became a Italian Citezen. I was born in the US, but I took advantage of the  "Right of Blood" provision of Italian law. Once I was able to document Grandparents and Great Grandparents birth, Italy considers me a born Italian not Naturalized. This avoids conflict with with my US Passport. The right extends to my wife also.

I can live in any EU Country I choose. My wife and I explored all of the likely places after I retired. It took a year for us to figure out we were Americans. While we met very nice people and were treated well, we realized that we were Americans and we took our American Passports out and came back.

I had real problems with the US after Nam, but we are essentially Yanks. Spain was very tempting, we will probably die here.

I thought leaving would be easy, but it was not. So we will live here on our own terms.     

i didnt realize you could do that. i have loads of family in Sicily and Italy

[Duke McDukiedook]

I would move to Vancouver in a heartbeat if it weren't so damn expensive. 

[74cb750]

End of Democracy?
Well I have to disagree a little.

Although I feel corporations being allowed to donate $ to candidates is wrong, I honestly do NOT believe it will change the  people whom are elected. If history is any guide, the incumbants will be re-elected, because "our" congressman/senator is making a difference. 

Ever notice you always believe Your elected official is good, and it always seems to be the other states that have "bad" officials?

just my 2 cents.
peace,
michel

[MCRider]

End of Democracy?
Well I have to disagree a little.

Although I feel corporations being allowed to donate $ to candidates is wrong, I honestly do NOT believe it will change the  people whom are elected. If history is any guide, the incumbants will be re-elected, because "our" congressman/senator is making a difference.  

Ever notice you always believe Your elected official is good, and it always seems to be the other states that have "bad" officials?

just my 2 cents.
peace,
michel

Thanks for bringing the thread back to the original concern. And I agree with you, sortof, not so cynically perhaps. Establishing that corps are individuals and entitles to free speech protection is the first thing, and that's always good to me. The more voices of all sorts the better. There are certainly many groups I personally wish could be censored, I would never advocate for such.

The assumed consequence that corps will now somehow ride roughshod over democracy implies that they aren't now, which of course they are.  And so are non-corp liberal PACs etc. And lets not forget, the ruling applies to Unions as well as corps.  Its just all part of the mix. And the checks and balances are still inplace. Witness the success of the TeaParties and conversely the failure of Air America.  http://airamerica.com/  (Yay)

I think people get the government they deserve, and they can change it if they want.

[Swede]

I really don't see how a corporation or a union can be granted the same free speech rights as an individual; do they have social security numbers?  Yes they are made up of people and each of those individuals has a right to vote and donate their money how they want.  So, if the people who make up the corporation are split down the middle between Dem and Rep and the corporation is using it's free speech right by spending money on ads to support one party and not the other doesn't that infringe on the rights of those on the other side?  The biggest concern that I have is the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe what they see and hear on the idiot box and radio.  They don't know how and are to lazy to search for any other information.  If corporations can buy up all the t.v. and radio spots they want then they can skew the flow of information to best suit their needs.  Corporations don't need free speech they already have lobbyists.   

[Brown Bomber]

I really don't see how a corporation or a union can be granted the same free speech rights as an individual; do they have social security numbers?  Yes they are made up of people and each of those individuals has a right to vote and donate their money how they want.  So, if the people who make up the corporation are split down the middle between Dem and Rep and the corporation is using it's free speech right by spending money on ads to support one party and not the other doesn't that infringe on the rights of those on the other side?  The biggest concern that I have is the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe what they see and hear on the idiot box and radio.  They don't know how and are to lazy to search for any other information.  If corporations can buy up all the t.v. and radio spots they want then they can skew the flow of information to best suit their needs.  Corporations don't need free speech they already have lobbyists.   

Well said! In fact, I doubt your statements could be improved upon. This country was founded on the rights of "The People", not corporations. Corporations influencing big government is what got us into this mess.

[Duke McDukiedook]

The "American Corporation" is what this country was founded upon, look it up.

This place was inhabited as a corporation of white, western settlers and hasn't changed since the word go.

Since a corporation is considered a "legal" being by our laws, what do you think would happen if we put the typical corporation to a psychological evaluation based upon behavioral psychology?

Can you lock up a corporation in a bug house?

[BobbyR]

In 1995 I became a Italian Citezen. I was born in the US, but I took advantage of the  "Right of Blood" provision of Italian law. Once I was able to document Grandparents and Great Grandparents birth, Italy considers me a born Italian not Naturalized. This avoids conflict with with my US Passport. The right extends to my wife also.

I can live in any EU Country I choose. My wife and I explored all of the likely places after I retired. It took a year for us to figure out we were Americans. While we met very nice people and were treated well, we realized that we were Americans and we took our American Passports out and came back.

I had real problems with the US after Nam, but we are essentially Yanks. Spain was very tempting, we will probably die here.

I thought leaving would be easy, but it was not. So we will live here on our own terms.     

i didnt realize you could do that. i have loads of family in Sicily and Italy

Yes you can, it takes a while since in Italay nothing moves too quickly but the cars and bikes. You can go as far back as your great grandparents. You will need to get their birth records from their Village. If they accept your proof you will be considered a native born Italian. I must warn you that even with the passport the people will always consider you "merrigan".  

[TwoTired]

Has anybody considered that many U.S. corporations are owned by those outside the U.S?

Can't wait 'til they buy up the U.S. media outlets and select programing to further their interests/beliefs, AND contribute directly to preferred election candidates.

Oh wait.  ...hasn't that already happened?  You don't have to charge the same for air time to everyone, do you?  That's purely a "business" decision, right?

[Duke McDukiedook]

I agree about the free speech part of the supreme court decision. Legally it was the right decision.

The problem with it is that today only a handful of corporations own the airwaves and companies that disseminate communications. The government loosened up or completely did away with the protective regulations that kept monopolies from happening in media markets.

So now you only hear one or two voices when in the past you heard many.
Remember way back when the government used to prevent corporations from getting too big?
 

[edbikerii]

Yes, and there is noplace where it is more important to protect freedom than in the media.  Unfortunately, the cable and satellite industries are comprised of government sanctioned monopolies.  These businesses control the sale of the content to the American household (they decide which channels get on the cable box, and in what packages they are available).

I agree about the free speech part of the supreme court decision. Legally it was the right decision.

The problem with it is that today only a handful of corporations own the airwaves and companies that disseminate communications. The government loosened up or completely did away with the protective regulations that kept monopolies from happening in media markets.

So now you only hear one or two voices when in the past you heard many.
Remember way back when the government used to prevent corporations from getting too big?
 

[BobbyR]

The problem with it is that today only a handful of corporations own the airwaves and companies that disseminate communications.

I'm with you 100% there. One example of this corruption is that GE owns NBC. Ever notice how NBC slants all this "green" energy stuff on their news casts and how many "green" commercials air on NBC's shows? Someone stands to make a lot of money off of it... You can't tell me that doesn't influence our "news".

Actually the networks are becoming less relevant and the internet has Democratized the flow of information. While it is still a free space, control is difficult. 

[MCRider]

I think the explosion of Internet blog style stuff has multiplied the voices beyond all comprehension.

I don't think this or any other government policy can restrict information now. Everybody I know including myself gets the information that is most important to them from non-commercial sources.

[Rocking-M]

I think the explosion of Internet blog style stuff has multiplied the voices beyond all comprehension.

I don't think this or any other government policy can restrict information now. Everybody I know including myself gets the information that is most important to them from non-commercial sources.

it seems there is a move to do away with all non-paid tv also. The transformation to digital tv broadcast has pretty much made this true. With the change to digital we lost all our PBS stations. And are limited to very few network broadcast.
I'd pretty much stopped watching any tv anyway but, this means the internet will become
even more important in the ability to find free speech.

As Jefferson said, "only in the free market place of ideals can truth prevail". (or something to that effect)

[MCRider]

I think the explosion of Internet blog style stuff has multiplied the voices beyond all comprehension.

I don't think this or any other government policy can restrict information now. Everybody I know including myself gets the information that is most important to them from non-commercial sources.

it seems there is a move to do away with all non-paid tv also. The transformation to digital tv broadcast has pretty much made this true. With the change to digital we lost all our PBS stations. And are limited to very few network broadcast.
I'd pretty much stopped watching any tv anyway but, this means the internet will become
even more important in the ability to find free speech.

As Jefferson said, "only in the free market place of ideals can truth prevail". (or something to that effect)

That's something unique to your area perhaps. When I had to buy the digital box for my rabbit ear TV in the garage, I picked up more PBS stations as well as a few others I wasn't getting on rabbit ears alone.

[BobbyR]

An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson

This about sums up these threads