<div>What are "we" paying them for? Good grief, Paul, you are too smart to pose the issue in this manner. "We," as in the average taxpaying Jane or Joe, do not pay them, at least not the big bucks. And the legislation that they vote on is often written in secret, worded by the very financial interests who are controlling the politicians who vote or don't vote. The appearance of participation or not in the voting process in the US Congress is often an expression of back room manipulation and crafting of legislation, aimed at a vote outcome that is carefully planned by the powerful financial interests financing the politicians.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The control of the US Congress, especially the US Senate, is in the hands of those who fund campaigns and lobby with the deepest pockets: the Fortune 500 corporations and millionaires and billionaires. Even the grass roots Internet financing of some candidates is dwarfed by the billions at the disposal of the economic elite, on the left or right, who control media exposure as media has become increasingly consolidated (so much for diversity in that marketplace, as right wing talk radio dominates, even with Air Americas emergence) as never before. US Senate races and re-elections are realistic only for candidates with massive financing, and no one can seriously run for president in this day without funding exceeding 100 million dollars. Am I correct?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Given we worship money and the power it offers, is this a surprise? Any candidate who poses a serious challenge to the power of corporate America, will discover the power of money to undermine or marginalize their campaign. Look at the real deal libertarian Ron Paul's drift into oblivion, in part due to the corporate controlled media ignoring him. Or the "Swift Boating" of John Kerry, financed by some very deep pockets. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right or left wing, conservative or liberal, are political stereotypes to manipulate the public to pursue an agenda based on maximizing wealth and power for a economic elite, now expressed in a multinational globalized economy. The national sovereignty of the United States is more and more becoming a quaint notion, the struggling US middle class more and more an economic embarrassment, as US jobs move overseas and our labor force competes with under a dollar an hour foreign workers supplying goods to a global marketplace, a fact that Obama and McCain appear hesitant to emphasise as a dominate campaign issue, though Ron Paul certainly has. Whether Obama or McCain wins this election, they will be facing the power of the multinational economic elites to control out government, so I wish them luck.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We have "The Best Democracy That Money Can Buy" as Greg Palast titled his book on this subject:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.gregpalast.com/">http://www.gregpalast.com/</a></div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div>Kudos to capitalism... Those who succeed in achieving the most wealth and power should run the nation. They earned their power and wealth based on their superior talents and work ethic, correct? You don't realistically think that the average Jane and Joe getting by on low wage jobs should be able to control the government via their puny tax contributions to a politicians pay? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>And if the US Congress appears lazy and ineffectual, don't despair! Private free enterprise will run our lives with the magic of the marketplace solving all problems... After all, government is just in the way of the workings of this marketplace "magic." Or are you one of those "socialists" who harps on about the need for regulation of capitalism by the government, suggesting the unregulated capitalist market does not serve the best interests of the nation (Blackwater private sector taxpayer funded soldiers of fortune paid 5 times what a soldier in the US military earns...The fairness of the marketplace in action?)?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I won't attempt to more fully "unpack" the implications of what I wrote in this post... Those of more intelligence and erudition than I have already spoke (Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest political intellectuals of our time, for example), and are being ignored, it appears.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, given that my post on Monday, August 18, 2008, in which I mentioned Plato's view of democracy, and how it relates to local elections, the wisdom of the voting public, and the politicians elected, was dismissed by some on this list as though it was impolite and unreasoned, I offer it again now as commentary on the foolishness of the voting public, controlled by the science of persuasion in modern political campaigns ("Vote For The Bigot Party," as the protester in downtown Moscow declared). Get ready for the "Swift Boating" of Obama or McCain (a nonpartisan take):</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-August/055439.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-August/055439.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plato might have been correct, that Democracy is flawed, that society should be run by committees of experts, who really know what they are talking about, rather than by politicians with questionable expertise, elected by a public of questionable wisdom... Or do I misunderstand Plato's "Republic?"<br>
<img alt="DaveGProtest" src="http://media.right-mind.us/right-mind/DaveGProtest_small.jpg" align="right" border="0"></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/31/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I hope this topic becomes large enough and loud enough of an issue to<br>actually shame our Congressmen and women into actually participating<br>
and/or voting occasionally. I was on leave for a few days when I was at<br>the Naval Academy and toured DC. This was in '86, I believe. One of<br>the things I did was watch a session of Congress. I don't remember if<br>
it was the House of Representatives or the Senate. It was a surreal<br>experience. There were, literally, a dozen Congressmen there. Almost<br>every one of them was reading the newspaper and paying absolutely no<br>attention to the Congressman that was speaking. The one that was<br>
speaking was expressing enthusiastic support for something, I don't<br>remember what. Not one of the Congressmen that were there acted as if<br>they even heard what was going on. That one visit trashed my view of<br>
our legislative branch forever. I was actually naive enough at one time<br>to think that the idiots running this country actually cared about<br>something. If we're not paying these guys and gals to discuss and<br>debate the issues, let alone vote on them, then what are we paying them for?<br>
<br>Paul<br><br></blockquote></div>