French Aristocrats are considering fleeing again. Unlike the last time, they aren’t threatened with being beheaded, just with having to pay their fair share in taxes. To save a little money, they’re thinking about abandoning their country and living somewhere else.
To me, this is additional evidence that the very rich aren’t members of the society they live in; they’re parasites on it.
The ‘War on Terror’ has cost us between 3 and 8 trillion dollars.
Do you feel safer, or just poorer?
This is the future for most workers. It sucks.
Perhaps before we worry too much about working conditions in China or other ‘Third World’ countries, we should look at conditions in the Third World country right here in the United States.
Politicians–especially, though certainly not exclusively, Republicans–are focused more and more on serving the interests of corporations and the very rich. They have to be; it requires corporate sponsorship to get elected, and those favors have to be paid off.
As the focus on serving the rich, though, they are focusing on an ever smaller portion of the electorate. Right now, I’d say about 10%. Eventually, the other 90% are going to realize that they’re being screwed. When that happens, corporate-sponsored politicians will no longer be able to win an honest popular election.
What happens then?
My own take is that they’ll try and drive voter participation in the unserved portion of the electorate down to such a low level that they can win with just a few percent of the population. When that fails, the elections will become even less honest than they already are. When the rich and powerful can no longer take control of the seats of power by honest means, they’ll do it dishonestly. Bet on it.
A while back, I talked about how many of the very rich are essentially sociopaths. I wasn’t just being mean; there’s scientific evidence to support that position.
You mean there are people who didbelievethe official statements?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you could invest in candidates the same way we can in stocks? Long positions, short sells, the whole thing.
Just came across this post about Authenticity in politics. Potter makes some good points, but I think there’s something he’s missing.
“Authenticity” is one of those political buzzwords; it doesn’t actually mean anything. Voters don’t want a politician who is ‘authentic’ (whatever that means). What the voters want, what I think some people are trying to get at when they say ‘authentic,’ is someone whose concept of what the job is is at least similar to the voter’s.
That’s it. Not someone who is ‘honest’ or ‘authentic’ or ‘true to himself.’ Just someone whose view of what the office holder should be doing is similar to what the voter thinks the office holder should be doing.
Let’s assume most voters have some idea of what problems they would try to fix if they somehow found themselves holding high elected office. The details will vary depending on the particular voter, but let’s say our hypothetical voter has this mental ‘to-do’ list of what they would do if they had the power:
1. Create jobs.
2. Get ‘us’ out of [whatever war happens to be going on at the moment].
3. Reduce healthcare costs.
Etc. Basically, the voter may not have much idea how to go about actually fixing these problems, or achieving these goals, but pretty much every voter has some idea of what problems they think need solving.
This is where the disconnect comes in. Right or wrong, most voters think that most politicians’ to-do list after taking office looks more like this:
1. Pay off favors to corporate paymasters.
2. Pay off favors to special interest groups that donated a lot of money to my campaign.
3. Secure funds for next election.
4. Bang a few interns.
You may notice that there is little overlap between these two lists. That’s the problem. Voters don’t give a shit about ‘authentic.’ They just want someone who they think will actually try and solve the problems they see.
A politician who sees the job as being about solving problems, not about just getting elected.
I’ll be brief. PIPA/SOPA isn’t about ‘protecting intellectual property rights.’ It’s about censorship, and giving big media companies (through the efforts of their paid mouthpieces in Congress), the ability to control what people see on the wild Internet.
So, you know, fuck them.