How much does it take...?

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
I know that the document I'm linking to is a bit on the harsh side - http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/18/military_commissions_a_go/ - but the question remains... How _far_ can the current US administration take the country before anyone _really_ stands up? Sometimes I truly fear that the USA _will_ become (or _has_ become) the Fourth Reich with their people standing by, smiling at comedians who're trying to put the finger on things. Everyone's laughing at how stupid Mr. Bush often looks, but that seems to be nothing more than good tactic: As long as no-one really takes him seriously, he's got fool's freedom.

What _can_ the American people do? Will you simply "wait it out", since it's only two more years? I think the past years have shown that two years can be more than enough to make a *lot* of mistakes. Can't he be impeached for some or other reason?
 
I'm embarrased at my country. We are no longer united, and we will not stand united until something disasterous happens... maybe flying a plane or two into the Sears Tower. Hay Dios mio, what do we do when our society is on the verge of immorality and our president is a couple feet from jumping into the pool of martial law? It's scary. I feel like our roots are decaying and our very grasp on that which creates democracy is failing under our infinite sects taking religion and morals out of our schooling systems and our idiot president taking charge under quasi-legal conditions.

We need reform.
 
The entire society needs reform, from the government to the corporations to the healthcare to the food we eat. Everything is a mess, and almost all of it is driven by greed. But everything has always been driven by greed, so why should it suddenly change now?

EDIT: Can you tell I'm a little cynical now? haha
 
The entire society needs reform, from the government to the corporations to the healthcare to the food we eat. Everything is a mess, and almost all of it is driven by greed. But everything has always been driven by greed, so why should it suddenly change now?

EDIT: Can you tell I'm a little cynical now? haha

Heh, maybe your cynicism is absafreakinglutely justified. We're in a downwards spiral with each generation getting stupider, fatter, and less believing in morality and altruism.
 
Heh, maybe your cynicism is absafreakinglutely justified. We're in a downwards spiral with each generation getting stupider, fatter, and less believing in morality and altruism.

Pretty much.
I'm leaving the country at the end of next year, and I don't intend to come back. That's always assuming that there's even something to come back TO; at the rate things are going right now there very well may not be.
Of course, if 'we' declare war on Iran before the end of the month, as I almost half expect 'we' might, I'll be leaving ASAP; probably in the spring as soon as the school year finishes. Because if 'we' do start a new war, there will be a draft. And I'm not sticking around for that.
 
Two good quotes, in my view:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety


[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1]Why, of course, the people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1]Hermann Goering, from a Nuremberg jail in 1946[/SIZE][/FONT]


 
Yes, but if you compare Bush to the Nazis, that _can't_ really be patriotic, right? :p
 
Yes, but if you compare Bush to the Nazis, that _can't_ really be patriotic, right? :p
lol

I wasn't directly comparing Bush to the Nazis, in that overall sense, I was pointing out that "an expert in these matters" (i.e. manipulating the public) seemed to almost be describing more recent handlings of events. Erm, yes, I can see that as a fine line, though!
 
It's a little early to give up entirely; we may see a starkly different Congress after the midterm elections, and no one yet knows how the Supreme Court will treat this legislation.

Still, I imagine those of us who lobbied our representatives to vote against this bill are as scared and as frustrated as I am. And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage is that this bill has opened some eyes in middle America: some of those folks we think of as myopic, corn-fed, Fox-news-watching Kansas residents did *not* approve this legislation. And they're alarmed.

The great unknown is how long it will take to shift these middle-class middle Americans away from a stance that runs counter to their own economic interests. As long as they get scared and fooled into voting Republican on the moral scapegoat issues such as abortion and gay marriage, they will continue to elect representatives who push the country in the direction we've seen over the last six years.
 
... "And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage..." ... While I can't speak for _all_ of us non-Americans: We _do_ get some American TV over here, and not all of our own TV stations are radically biased in every which way. ;) The choice of where you get your news and analysis always depends on the individual, of course.

Although I'm happy that this sounds like a good omen for the midterms, it also strikes me as odd, a little. A bit like: "Oh, we're going to lose votes, let's jump to the Democrats, win the elections over there and then go on working like the good old GOPpers we really are." ;) ...

Let's assume that change is coming in the midterms. Would this mean a _great_ difference in how Bush et al. work the world? Or would it simply hinder any and all actions and leave the US in a state where the field is wide open again for the presidential elections in 2008?
 
Re: coverage, my point is not that external coverage of US politics is biased (for surely, internal coverage is often more biased), but that these stories of the slow shifts in middle America may not make great waves outside our domestic news sources. For now, at least.

The broader view of these shifts in, e.g., Kansas, from Republican to Democrat, is actually that they are shifts back to the Democrats, who until the sixties were the traditional party of the rural working class. The massive success of the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" in the sixties and seventies essentially proved that moral and cultural scare tactics can move middle America away from their own economic self-interest, which is why the Rs have stuck to their methods for forty years now.

The two-party system does a bad job of capturing the broad middle swath of voters. That these candidates, and their constituents, may switch parties every few decades doesn't show a radical change in their own politics so much as a failure of one party or another to represent them in some important way.
 
The two-party system is deeply flawed in any case. So often everything degenerates into 'us vs. them', to the point that beating 'them' usually appears to be a greater priority than the common good. Both parties spend so much time trying to smear the opposite 'side' that the really important things never get done.
I am extremely jaded as to politicians in general. The Democrats used to be appealing for their views, but lately we're been told 'vote for us because we're better, because we're not "them"' instead of something truly useful like 'vote for us because we have this plan to end world hunger in three years, and the other plan to use the United Nations to eradicate terrorism through peaceful means.'
Most politicians are so corrupted by the system that there's really very little difference between the two parties now. Anyone with real convictions, which actually make sense, is trampled on by being 'too weak.' For example, Denver, CO, has an absolutely wonderful mayor at the moment. I have met him personally, and he is one of the few politicians whom I honestly like. He does what he does because he knows it's the right thing. Of course, this is his first political position (be was a businessman before, and not in a way that would allow him to be 'pre-corrupted' by that system) and he decided against running for governor this year, even though I'm quite certain he would have won had he done so.
In general, I think anyone who actually wants the kind of power our senators have ought to be kept away from it at all possible costs. This system was begun out of greed (removal of high British taxes,) and has continued through greed, and while I think it's certainly not the best system possible, I think it definitely has far more potential than we're currently tapping. One of the first things that has to go is the entire idea of 'career politicians.' The original system called for Joe Smith to come out of his little farm in Ohio and spend four years as president, and then go right back to Ohio. I know you'll say that's not feasible, but think about why. Here's a hint: because the system has been carefully modified to the point that it's no longer feasible.

I think the very first communists had a good idea. Before that one also was taken over by politicians.
 
It's funny when you look back in history; the Founding Fathers were very cautious to avoid the creation of political parties, not one mention of them inn the Constitution. They succeded, too, for Washington, and partly John Adam's term. Of course, factions began to develop over many issues, and even without a party system, divides would occur. The divides just happened to be over the power of the national government, and the first parties, the Federalists and the Anti-Fedralists - later called the Republicans (not to be confused with the modern Republican party), formed. John Adams, a Federalist, took office after Washington. During Adam's term the Federalists experienced increased popularity as a result of the Quasi War with France, and they took a majority in Congress. The Federalists proceeded to pass the Alien and Sedition act, which limited immigration, and made it possible to arrest dissenters of the government (sound familiar?). In what was to be the ugliest campaign in American history, the Federalists lost office mainly because of these acts.
They always say history repeats itself..
 
...but how much? Back then I bet a larger percentage of people felt more strongly about more things. Not to mention that they hadn't been subjected to a hundred years of 'dumbing down,' as we have now. The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply don't care. And that is incredibly dangerous in a democracy.
 
The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply don't care.


This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic. I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs. What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.

Nothing's really changed. The players may be different but the game is the same.
 
I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!

While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage – and now even in SPACE, FFS!

And Tony Blair's meek acquiesence and collusion in these excesses are equally sickening.

Maybe I'll go back to Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is looking increasing mild and pragmatic compared with Bush. At least he only bullies and terrorises his OWN people!
 
This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic. I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs. What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.

Nothing's really changed. The players may be different but the game is the same.
I suppose I wasn't terribly clear. I know the 'masses' have always been rather apathetic, but I meant our education system in general nowadays is very poor. For example, look at this: http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html
Most college graduates now couldn't pass that test, let alone middle-schoolers.

I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!

While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage – and now even in SPACE, FFS!

And Tony Blair's meek acquiesence and collusion in these excesses are equally sickening.

Maybe I'll go back to Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is looking increasing mild and pragmatic compared with Bush. At least he only bullies and terrorises his OWN people!
I don't think it's quite that bad, yet. If the CIA bothered to track down everyone who says something unpatriotic regarding the US, I, and almost everyone I know, would have been in jail for the last four years already! Give it a few more years though...

One of the most basic problems I have with the current administration is their apparently deep-rooted belief that everyone else is inferior, the US is the best, and anyone who disagrees must be evil. It shows in their dealings with the UN ('We know best, if you're not with us then we'll do it without you',) in their stance on Iran ('well, of course they're doing it for evil purposes, what other possible reason could they have to need nuclear technology?') and even the way they view the Middle East as a whole. And that's not even mentioning Israel and how we're always willing to beat up everyone else for them. Go to some Arabian news site some time and read the comments there. The muslims in the middle east hate us. A lot. And there's no possible way the US can win this 'war' against them, because we haven't learned from history. Empires (and make no mistake, the US is turning into one) always fall. The only surprising thing here is that it has taken this long to begin. That is because until the last 50 years, we were fairly well-liked, and actually seen as a good ally to have. Now we're a liability; any government which dares to support us is quickly removed.

As to Tony Blair, I see that he has only one advantage over Bush: he actually is able to speak in public without appearing to be a complete moron. I hope he's replaced by some viciously anti-US progressive candidate who can completely sever relations with the US, just after I get into the country. After all, what's the use in leaving the 'big evil' just to run into its little brother!
 
I just have to say that the first article sounds terribly familiar... ah, I know! It's just like Portugal before the revoltuion of 1974! :D

For those who don't know, until then, Portugal was under a fascist dictatorship and there was a political police that acted just like described in the article.

BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!
 
Well: The "constitution" should very _well_ be still viable after a couple hundred years in a modern democratic state. Sure, some things change, but that's what a constitution is all about: *NOT* to be changed by whichever short wind is blowing...
 
Back
Top