No Valentine for Kimberley Process

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sat Feb 11, 2012 17:31

But in practice Washington is deluged in corporate lobbyists laden with Greek(and the rest of us ripe PIGS) gifts and PACs(not least AIPAC)to ensure that the democratic arithmethic turns numerologically pliable.

And you didn't factor in Mad-is-on Ave, rat-fucking(Nixon's word for ballot stuffing), or the fact that(like Ireland et al) you can vote for a set of policies presented, and find the re-presentatives dont even deliver 2%.

At present democracy is of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporate sector, and given the economic(well really financial,i.e. false economics)criticality, all those tink tanks are swivelling their turrets into war-mode for a revisit of '29 extraction re-run.

Not a lot there of the people, by the people, for the people; or of Liberty(now read licence), Egalite(some being by virtue, or vice, of wallet more egal)or Fraternite..excepting p'r'aps ye ol' fraternal hatreds.

And when the corporate sector is feeding off quantative easing(run the pre$$e$)and Raytheon is headlining Wall Street...well all that esoteric theorising wont wash the haemoglobin off the rocks.

Thats no 'reasonable approximation', its a perversion of the peoples' will.

If you believe otherwise, you're mixing with the wrong peoples. Most people dont profit from the acts being perpetrated in the name of this twisted oligarchic and increasingly totalitarian corporate dictatorship.

On thje contrary, most of us stand to lose..not having bombproof bunkers to head for when the blowback hits our streets.

by Mike Novack Sat Feb 11, 2012 15:22

The US may be far from a perfect democracy but it is a reasonable approximation. The way a democracy works, people get some say about the group decisions, get to influence those decsions. Especially with the forms of democracy common in the US which are less concerned with knowing which political faction is "responsible" for decisions than arranging for a sort of social negotiation whereby minority interests can get some of what they want if willing to trade support (goes by the name of "log rolling" -- you help me roll my log and I help you roll yours).

Well in the US the citizens who are "Zionists" get to vote too. While not a large percentage in the country overall even where they are sparse there is no gain from going against their desires. And they aren't distributed evenly The US is a federation of states and in about 1/4 of those states the "Zionists" are a higher pecentage of the population that the typical winning percentage in elections. Their influence is great because taken as a group there aren't other issues they feel strongly enouhg about that could be used to buy them off.

Understand? There are less Congressional Districts in the US where Arab-Americans have more influence than Zionist-Americans than you could count on the fingers of one hand. In practical terms that means the US will not support a boycott of Israel. IT COSTS VOTES. Nor do the Zionist-Americans ever forget (perhaps true of the Arab-Americans, but as I pointed out before, that is VERY few seats in Congress).

Remember, democracy, when working properly is not about making good, wise, just, etc. decsions. We can only judege whether or not democratic by whether the decisions made are what the people want, for good or ill. And by "want" I mean after all the horsetrading is done (not that a majority WANT each and every thing in the package but that they want the package, accepting some things in it they do not care for because of all the things in the pacjage that they want very badly).

For those of you to whom this seems like a strange conception for democracy, who expect a compact majority that actually wants everything in the package and expecs each item to be able to win a majority vote if considered all by itself in isolation from all other issues you need to understand something. The US system (and way of thinking ) is influenced by the belief that the society will be so diverse, so broken into a zillion small interests, that almost NOTHING would be wanted by a majority if considered in isolation. In other words, the assumption that only by interests bargaining with each other to mutually support the items that they really want can anything get a majority behind it.