View Full Version : Annoyed with Hilary
iris lily
3-13-15, 11:12pm
Good lord, I feel sorry for Democrats who are going to have this candidate shoved upon them. What is up with Hil, anyway? She won't commit to running and is keeping all in her party paralyzed.
Now she's twisting around in yet another attempt to wiggle out of a situation she put herself in, against all common sense: using her own personal communication devices and account to conduct governmental business. It was governmental business at a damned high level. It may be legal but that doesn't make it practical, advisable, or a show of good judgement.
Aren't the Clinton devotees becoming tired of their shennanigans? Bill and Hil just aren't up to towing a line. Rules/schmools, those are for rubes.
I think the State Department gig was a cover for her Bill & Hil Foundation. Travelling around the globe accepting donations from foreign governments and doing her sales pitch on her private mail server. Just think of the embarrassment if she got her business account confused with a government account....better to keep the evidence in house.
As someone who's career is focused on data security I agree that it was wrong and stupid of her to not use state department email. None of us know what security measures were taken but I have a hard time believing that they were better than the government's. That said, it's not like she was the first secretary of state to do so. Unfortunately this seems to have been the norm for people in her position from both parties. Hopefully this will no longer be the case.
lessisbest
3-14-15, 5:55am
I think the State Department gig was a cover for her Bill & Hil Foundation. Travelling around the globe accepting donations from foreign governments and doing her sales pitch on her private mail server. Just think of the embarrassment if she got her business account confused with a government account....better to keep the evidence in house.
Bill and Hill - will they turn out to be the new Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?
I was a lifelong registered Democrat until Hillary lost to Obama. Now I'm registered as "Unaffiliated" and I feel sorry for the whole country who get candidates from both parties "shoved upon them" via the political "machine" and the press.
I am so disheartened right now over all politics, I hope someone comes to every party to give me something to get excited or inspired about. I can't commit to any party anymore.
goldensmom
3-14-15, 7:35am
I have no negative feelings toward the Clintons (or Bushes) they are doing what they know and do best. I’ve been around since the Eisenhower era and have seen many scandals and shenanigans come and go. I value wisdom and experience but good grief, is there no new blood out there? It’s not over by a long shot. There is a lot of time for an upstart to come on the scene and steal the show…. it happened in 2008.
Where are her challengers? What is wrong with the Democrats? In what pathetic political jungle is this woman the apex predator?
Teacher Terry
3-14-15, 2:58pm
I think we will have the Clinton's vs the Bush's again. I would like some new blood. The secret service set up her at home email security so I am sure it was very secure.
The secret service set up her at home email security so I am sure it was very secure.
The Secret Service did not set up the server. She claims it is secure because the Secret Service are stationed at her house, although the presence of Secret Service does not make it a SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility). Also, physical security is only one element of a secure environment, the network itself must be hardened against outside intrusion. Who knows how secure her server actually is?
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume her email server was as secure as the typical business server, although probably not to government standards. The real issue is the lack of transparency. When a government official intentionally hides their communications from proper disclosure, they're probably not worthy of public trust.
I figure that nobody in their right mind that is electable & experienced wants to run for Presydent, anymore. Too much flak from partisan fanatics who are clueless. Besides, It takes lots of name recognition to get nominated & an unknown outside the establishment running on a third-party has little chance of winning. If you are holding a nice congressional seat or are a perennial officeholder, may as well stay put & reap the benefits. Why end up living in a fish bowl, with a full-time security detail escorting you everywhere, as Presidents do for the rest of their life, on account of concern that some crazy person will take a shot at you? So, yeah--we now have political dynasties & royal families. You can kind of see how that all evolved in Europe, now. Well, can't you?
rosarugosa
3-14-15, 8:00pm
Packy: It's hard to escape the conclusion that desire for the job should be an automatic disqualifier.
Packy: It's hard to escape the conclusion that desire for the job should be an automatic disqualifier.Good Point. To paraphrase Groucho Marx: I refuse to vote for any politician that is willing to take the job.
When a government official intentionally hides their communications from proper disclosure, they're probably not worthy of public trust.
Ha ha! Boy do you have THAT right! Which means we can't trust just about EVERY republican in Congress who went behind everyone's back, the President, the state department, etc..in inviting Netyanahoo to speak to congress.
There is also that troubling little bit of sedition by the Senate republicans who actively tried to undermine the President, embarrass him while endangering the entire wold by writing a letter to the leaders of Iran essentially telling them to 'don't deal with the black guy cause we don't recognize his authority.' Can we trust them Alan? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking they need to go to jail as the traitors they are.
So, in under a month, we have practically all republicans in congress actively trying to undermine the United States of America...Enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. And all without consulting the state dept or the white house or anyone. Look that one up in your pocket constitution. ;)
You're right Alan. Not a one of them can be trusted. Unfortunately, that kind of destroys the republican pool of candidates.
As far as Hillary goes, on hindsight she should have used the gov server. But this is another case of there's no there there. Trumped up right wing outrage. Outrage I tell ya! I know Republicans are grateful for this as even the lowest information voter will eventually realize that 8 investigations (and counting) on Benghazi revealing absolutely nothing is a waste of time, money, and outrage. Here's something new to be spun up about! The fact that she actually turned over all the e-mails they requested shouldn't get in the way of another 7 or 8 years of 'investigations'.
Not like when Bush Co. lost 5 million e-mails.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820
Hey, remember the outrage on that one? yeah, me neither.
I think we will have the Clinton's vs the Bush's again. I would like some new blood. Exactly what I was thinking. I prefer one side to the other but it's starting to seem like oligarchy just shifts back and forth here, which can't be good for anyone - except the clintons and bushes, of course.
Exactly what I was thinking. I prefer one side to the other but it's starting to seem like oligarchy just shifts back and forth here, which can't be good for anyone - except the clintons and bushes, of course.
I was just thinking the oligarchy doesn't really move at all (unless becoming more entrenched counts as movement). They just install a different figurehead every few years so none of the sheeple are ever too far from getting what they want. Hil winning in 2016 would risk upsetting the apple cart the same way GHWB's single win did after 8 years of Reagan. A 12 year run by the straw boss(es) of either party seems to be a bit too much for the other half of the herd to take. Its probably better for the top of the food chain to keep the electorate docile by letting the pendulum swing right for a few years then back left in 2020 or 2024. Too bad for Hil that she wasn't born 10 years later...
I just got to see Noam Chomsky lecture yesterday. I would like our next President to live in an intellectual sandwich between him and Howard Zinn. If that were the case, I wouldn't care less who was in the middle.
:~)
kib, I'd be right there with you in supporting that candidate. Sadly I'm afraid our choices will look nothing like that.
Ha ha! Boy do you have THAT right! Which means we can't trust just about EVERY republican in Congress who went behind everyone's back, the President, the state department, etc..in inviting Netyanahoo to speak to congress.
There is also that troubling little bit of sedition by the Senate republicans who actively tried to undermine the President, embarrass him while endangering the entire wold by writing a letter to the leaders of Iran essentially telling them to 'don't deal with the black guy cause we don't recognize his authority.' Can we trust them Alan? I'm thinking not. I'm thinking they need to go to jail as the traitors they are.
So, in under a month, we have practically all republicans in congress actively trying to undermine the United States of America...Enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. And all without consulting the state dept or the white house or anyone. Look that one up in your pocket constitution. ;)
Actually, they were quite open about inviting the Prime Minister to speak before Congress, it may have been done without the President's blessing but it certainly wasn't done behind his back, and I'm not sure what is seditious in the letter to the Mullah's. Was it seditious for Churchill to warn against Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" trust in the Nazis?
The fact that she actually turned over all the e-mails they requested shouldn't get in the way of another 7 or 8 years of 'investigations'
How do you know she turned over all of them, and weren't the ones she did turn over only done so just recently, after the public learning of her inability to place two email accounts on one device? (Just for the record, I've got three email accounts on my phone).
How do you know she turned over all of them, and weren't the ones she did turn over only done so just recently, after the public learning of her inability to place two email accounts on one device? (Just for the record, I've got three email accounts on my phone).
Given the history of the disappearing Rose Law Firm records, the attribution of the Benghazi disaster to angry film critics before declaring "it really doesn't matter at this point", an amazingly short but lucrative commodity trading career and Sandy Berger trying to sneak out of the National Archives with documents stuffed in his pants, I think its fairly safe to assume Mrs. Clinton was more interested in controlling the flow of information than sparing one of her lackeys the burden of carrying an extra cell phone.
Given the history of the disappearing Rose Law Firm records, the attribution of the Benghazi disaster to angry film critics before declaring "it really doesn't matter at this point", an amazingly short but lucrative commodity trading career and Sandy Berger trying to sneak out of the National Archives with documents stuffed in his pants, I think its fairly safe to assume Mrs. Clinton was more interested in controlling the flow of information than sparing one of her lackeys the burden of carrying an extra cell phone.Oh come on LDAHL, you know it's all just a "vast right wing conspiracy"....<wink, wink, nudge, nudge>
I think the simple truth is that she did not want to mess with having two cell phones, two email accounts,etc. No one is questioning Colin Powell who did the same.
It would have been wiser to get advice from someone tech savy and save herself (and us) from this constant crap from the media.
I think the simple truth is that she did not want to mess with having two cell phones, two email accounts,etc. No one is questioning Colin Powell who did the same.
It would have been wiser to get advice from someone tech savy and save herself (and us) from this constant crap from the media.
It's hard to associate the phrase "simple truth" with the Clintons. Either Bill's elegant parsing of the difficult concept of "is", or Hilary's brush with sniper fire.
Among their helpful legion of lawyers, minions, advisors, pardoned criminals, donors and hangers-on, they just neglected to ask someone for advice?
No one is questioning Colin Powell who did the same.
.
+1. Although to be fair, no one would give a crap about Hillary's email if she weren't thinking about running for president and so virulently hated by people on the right.
Actually, they were quite open about inviting the Prime Minister to speak before Congress, it may have been done without the President's blessing but it certainly wasn't done behind his back, and I'm not sure what is seditious in the letter to the Mullah's. Was it seditious for Churchill to warn against Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" trust in the Nazis?
How do you know she turned over all of them, and weren't the ones she did turn over only done so just recently, after the public learning of her inability to place two email accounts on one device? (Just for the record, I've got three email accounts on my phone).
Yes Alan, it was done behind his back. They did not consult the White House or the State department BEFORE they invited him. Sure, AFTER they invited him they said, 'Oh by the way..." Big difference here. This was an intentional slap in the Presidents face.
And your second comparison is laughable. Only the very least informed (or most easily distracted) person would consider these comparable. In other words, Fox viewers.;) Churchill wasn't trying to undermine delicate negotiation by his own country. These traitorous Senators were. They were trying to undermine their own President during international negotiations to hopefully avoid war. A process they had absolutely no business interfering in. Perhaps if even one of them would not merely accessorize with their pocket constitution and actually read it they would know this.
But then, maybe it's asking too much to expect any of them, led by Tom cotton, to know anything of the constitution...or geography, or anything.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/people/shock-horror-apparently-iran-occupied-tehran/
I'm not surprised you are defending these actions Alan. Just as I know you would condemn these very same actions if they were against a republican President. You are, if nothing else, exceedingly predictable in your ideological opinions.
Hill did turn over the e-mails to the state dept. It is actually them who are withholding them. Hill has asked them to release these e-mails but the State Dept is dragging their feet, as they always do. But, I have to ask. What exactly do you think they will discover in these e-mails that 8 separate investigations have not uncovered? There isn't anything there. There really isn't. Hillary didn't orchestrate the attack. She didn't order it, or lead it, or provide guns or anything. She had nothing to do with the attack. You know it, i know it and the Pope knows it. She didn't tell the military to stand down, or disarm, or aid the attackers. This has been proven over and over again.
I can't believe this is going on and on. How stupid are people that they haven't realized that these witch hunters have conducted 8 investigations into "why didn't Hillary know immediately every detail about this attack"
This is what they're 'investigating'! They are investigating the fact that we didn't know every detail for a couple of days. Really! That's worthy of 8 (and counting) investigations? How many 'days' did it take Bush to 'figure' it out, even as it happened in our own back yard?
This is the definition of insanity. And the state of the republican party.
+1. Although to be fair, no one would give a crap about Hillary's email if she weren't thinking about running for president and so virulently hated by people on the right.
Here is a response to the tu quoque defense Hilary's proxies have been spraying around from the Justice Department's former information-disclosure chief:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-defense-laughable-foia-116116.html?ml=m_pm#.VQhPW47F9gE
I'm not surprised you are defending these actions Alan........ You are, if nothing else, exceedingly predictable in your ideological opinions.
LOL, Peg, I've missed you....
p.s., Damned Republicans!! :cool:
LOL, Peg, I've missed you....
p.s., Damned Republicans!! :cool:
Peg is right to remind us of the difference between WS Churchill and our present leadership:
“And to go back to what I said earlier....we know that if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL’s sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its financing, its military capabilities to the point where it is a manageable problem. And the question is going to be making sure we’ve got the right strategy, but also making sure that we’ve got the international will to do it.”
B. Obama
“You ask, what is our policy? I will say, it is wage to war, by sea, land with air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give to us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is your aim? I can answer in one word: it is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”
W. Churchill
There is indeed no comparison.
Among their helpful legion of lawyers, minions, advisors, pardoned criminals, donors and hangers-on, they just neglected to ask someone for advice?
I hold elected office in my County. My State has very strict open public records regulations. It is a requirement of elected officials in this State to receive training in the public records and public meetings laws, and one of the many things covered in that class is the need to keep your official communications apart from your personal ones. Official communications have to be done in ways that the public can gain access to them.
Thus I maintain an official computer, and email, and phone, that are only used for official business. Otherwise the courts have held here that my *personal* computers and records can be required to be produced to the public for inspection.
RCW 42.56.030:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
I hold elected office in my County. My State has very strict open public records regulations. It is a requirement of elected officials in this State to receive training in the public records and public meetings laws, and one of the many things covered in that class is the need to keep your official communications apart from your personal ones. Official communications have to be done in ways that the public can gain access to them.
Thus I maintain an official computer, and email, and phone, that are only used for official business. Otherwise the courts have held here that my *personal* computers and records can be required to be produced to the public for inspection.
RCW 42.56.030:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern.
We have a similar Open Records law in Wisconsin. Apart from HIPAA and ongoing labor negotiations or disciplinary reviews, pretty much anything is fair game. We've been told that if we conduct municipal business on personal devices those devices are subject to subpoena or legal discovery. I don't know why the Feds just can't seize her server and try to recover at least some deleted files.
has anyone blamed the bush administration yet?
goldensmom
3-18-15, 9:59am
People will believe what they choose to believe regardless of facts and testimony. If the facts do not support their view, the facts are wrong. If people say what they do not agree with, people lie. If things are not going your way, blame the other side. Truth and responsibility are lost in a self-serving society. The whole subject is wearisome.
........If the facts do not support their view, the facts are wrong.......
Interestingly enough, this morning I had to complete my annual Records Management and Accountability course where I was reminded of the legal implications of improper classification, retention and destruction of business documents. It appears the government holds me and my post-it-notes and emails to a higher standard that it does Hillary's official correspondence. I wonder why?
goldensmom
3-18-15, 2:09pm
It appears the government holds me and my post-it-notes and emails to a higher standard
When I was working for a state government agency, I had a working file of case notes and an official case file. My working file, any notes and messages as well as the official case file were subject to subpoena and on occasion it was subpoenaed. I guess I could have ‘lost’ some of my notes before adhering to the court order but I am too much of a rule keeper.
ApatheticNoMore
3-18-15, 4:05pm
Interestingly enough, this morning I had to complete my annual Records Management and Accountability course where I was reminded of the legal implications of improper classification, retention and destruction of business documents. It appears the government holds me and my post-it-notes and emails to a higher standard that it does Hillary's official correspondence. I wonder why?
oh well welcome to the real world.
So how many times have I had classes about money laundering (uh how to prevent it that is). And how the government is obsessed with your 10k (that has never been adjusted for inflation). Meanwhile the banks (HSBC) are money laundering real money (not 10k) for the drug dealers for a slap on the wrist. But remember if you withdraw 10k to buy a used car, the government is oh so concerned. One rule for the elite, another for the rest.
does it bother anyone that the government is and will be spending so much time and money on another goose chase?
goldensmom
3-19-15, 11:33am
does it bother anyone that the government is and will be spending so much time and money on another goose chase?
Not me. It does not bother me anymore than other government (state and federal) monies spent on grants for nonsense (irrelevant outcome) studies or conferences/trainings that I have attended and to which I can attest are a waste of time and money.
ApatheticNoMore
3-19-15, 12:22pm
does it bother anyone that the government is and will be spending so much time and money on another goose chase?
really not me either. Because how can it bother me compared to the money the government wastes on wars? It simply can't even be in the same ballpark (nor of course on the same level of destructiveness to make the understatement of the century). But how can Hilliary's scandals disturb me more than the fact that Hillary is likely even more of a warmonger than Obama? They can't and don't.
I think what freaks me out the most ... well there are lots of things, but it's the fact that they're all war mongers. It's apparently what makes this country great, it's what's been fueling our economy for a few centuries now. Disgusting, tragic, greedy, fearful, unevolved waste of life and resources ... makes me ashamed to live here when I think about it too much.
goldensmom
3-19-15, 1:39pm
... makes me ashamed to live here when I think about it too much.
Here is a great thing about the United States.....in many situations you freedom of choice and in this case you have the freedom to 1) not think too much or 2) move. :)
True, I suppose if everyone else is delighted to kill each other and agrees that thieving and bullying is an awesome strategy for planetary advancement, I ought to go somewhere else.
goldensmom
3-19-15, 2:23pm
True, I suppose if everyone else is delighted to kill each other and agrees that thieving and bullying is an awesome strategy for planetary advancement, I ought to go somewhere else.
:+1:
I can't imagine a non-warmonger as president of this country. I'm starting to see us as the modern equivalent of the Roman Empire.
I can't imagine a non-warmonger as president of this country. I'm starting to see us as the modern equivalent of the Roman Empire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU
Thanks, Bae. We are, we are. Not alone, of course, but we are. Doubt the news is going far, though. Blinders on, everyone!
-- Love Mitchell & Webb!
Well it appears that she took care of all those pesty emails. We can all trust her when she says there was nothing to see there. She just wanted to save anyone the trouble of having to look them over.
iris lilies
3-28-15, 8:12am
Well it appears that she took care of all those pesty emails. We can all trust her when she says there was nothing to see there. She just wanted to save anyone the trouble of having to look them over.
I still love what the National Review said about Hilary during her stint as Secretary of State: She was predictably dishonest, but surprisingly incompetent.
Hey--I had something important to say about Hill-O-ree! Anyway I stumbled across the F-book account of a lifelong resident of that littlebitty town waaaaay up north, out in the middle o' nowhere. Guess what his avocation is? You kids guessed it--PIZZA! He's got pictures of pizzas he's made "from scratch" as you kids like to say--pictures going back months and months. I'd say he is what you'd call a good fit, in that community. His F-book friends are leaving comments like: Yummy! Delish! Awesome! Scrumptious! I have a hunch his dream would be to start upp yet another pizza joint in one of the many empty buildings downtown, catering to the dietary excesses of the locals, if his wife will let him. It is a matriarchal Society up there. So, Those People no doubt will cross party lines to support Hil in '16. Anyway, MY dream is--maybe Hillary & Texas Ted(either of them)can square off, MMA-style, to determine the outcome. May the best man win. This way, they don't need to worry about voter-turnout, ballot-box stuffing, and all that. Thankk Mee.
Teacher Terry
3-28-15, 1:08pm
You can call Hillary many things but stupid or incompetent would not be one of them. Now if you want stupid think Bush.
You can call Hillary many things but stupid or incompetent would not be one of them. Now if you want stupid think Bush.
I don't think anyone ever called Hillary stupid, it takes a fair amount of smarts to be as consistently dishonest and self-serving as she has shown herself capable of being.
As for the "Bush is stupid" meme, well it doesn't stand up to scrutiny when compared to his Democratic contemporaries: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm although I suppose it does seem to make some folks happy to believe it.
goldensmom
3-28-15, 4:06pm
Now if you want stupid think Bush.
That's just not nice. When I think 'Bush', as in a person with the last name 'Bush', I think of 2 co-workers who were highly intelligent, competent, accomplished women.
Well, if you're like Shrub 2, and had a rhr of 51 bpm & a max hr of 180 bpm at age 61; cholesterol count of 170, exercise every day, have your meals planned by a dietician, don't drink or smoke, are within normal weight range; good blood pressure, are totally asymptomatic, all that---and STILL let some so-called "Doctor" talk you into having an arterial stent done---then I guess you are gullible and ignorant enough not to have a very sound mind of your own. That's Shrub for you.
You can call Hillary many things but stupid or incompetent would not be one of them. Now if you want stupid think Bush.The trouble with Hillary is that she is, and always has been, the object of intense hatred promoted by the irrational rwnj redneck element. Worse, I'm afraid, than Yobomma. We prolly need a president that is not so polarizing; I realize that is a tough one, but probably the #1 qualification for the job, this time around. That, and a knack for not getting us stuck in any more foreign quagmires.
Well, if you're like Shrub 2, and had a rhr of 51 bpm & a max hr of 180 bpm at age 61; cholesterol count of 170, exercise every day, have your meals planned by a dietician, don't drink or smoke, are within normal weight range; good blood pressure, are totally asymptomatic, all that---and STILL let some so-called "Doctor" talk you into having an arterial stent done---then I guess you are gullible and ignorant enough not to have a very sound mind of your own. That's Shrub for you.
I had a stent installed a couple of years ago due to a minor blockage in the left anterior descending coronary artery, often referred to as The Widow Maker. Did I ignorantly jump the gun by not waiting for the heart attack?
I had a stent installed a couple of years ago due to a minor blockage in the left anterior descending coronary artery, often referred to as The Widow Maker. Did I ignorantly jump the gun by not waiting for the heart attack?Well, see Big Al: I am not an MD, and therefore I can't dispense medical advice to you. And even if I were, Not without first comprehensively reviewing your medical records. But, what you stated--that is ZACKLY what Shrub 2's Medicine Man said to defend himself from a firestorm of criticism about this! Even though experts later opined that at Shrubs' age, the blockage would probably never have progressed enough to give him trouble. See? To me, it's kind of analogous to Angelina Jolie having most of her woman parts removed, preemptively. Or, getting your Volvo repainted, even though the wheels are about to fall off, and the engine has 459,000 miles on it. But--one major reason they do it is because they CAN; there is no justifying it with an insurance company, and it poses no financial hardship. Both are wealthy, and besides, Shrub is entitled to the best care, no expense spared, for life, as former President. I sure would have a complete checkup, several times a year, if there was no expense on my part. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
Well, see Big Al: I am not an MD,.... .You just play one on internet forums in order to disparage others?
You just play one on internet forums in order to disparage others? Just Wondering: Who is disparaging who? That said, from now on, I will only "disparage" Hill-o-ree and Yobamma. Will that work for ya? Just trying to be funny.
Teacher Terry
3-29-15, 5:54pm
Sorry to everyone with the last name of Bush although I am pretty sure everyone knew who I was talking about. The elder Bush was a smart man but the younger-not so much:~).
I like Hillary, very much. I have a crush on her, and if she ever pulled the plug on "Billary", you can bet I would be her A-number one stalker. Not only is she a real hottie, like Sarah Pailin' (who carries water for the republicans in order to round up the retarded-baby-lovin' inbred redneck vote), but she has tons and tons of well----flat-out charisma. So much so, that I believe every lie she tells, pledging allegiance to all of those lame ideals, just to get votes. Also, the REAL attraction she has for me is this: I cannot resist an opportunistic carpetbagger! Even if a candidate has absolutely NO values whatever, and a fat daughter who gets paid $100,000 year her first year out of college, and $600,000 for being an occasional tee-vee taking head, I will support them simply on the Carpetbagger credential, alone. I plan to obtain no less than 100 "Hillary" bumper stickers, and cover my car with them. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
I just got to see Noam Chomsky lecture yesterday. I would like our next President to live in an intellectual sandwich between him and Howard Zinn. If that were the case, I wouldn't care less who was in the middle.
:~)
How about Senator Bernie Sanders in the middle! A voice of reason. Seriously, I don't think anyone from either party will be able to buck Wall Street.
Seriously, I don't think anyone from either party will be able to buck Wall Street.
Unfortunately I suspect that truer words have never been spoken (typed...)
Seriously, I don't think anyone from either party will be able to buck Wall Street.
I can't really imagine that any victorious candidate will try.
Ah yes. “Wall Street”. The duct tape of progressive argument. Where would the left be without that wonderful metonym, that glorious all-purpose villain to blame for the ills of the world? Do people borrow foolishly, or worse yet are they prevented from borrowing as foolishly as they would wish? Blame Wall Street. Is your industry obsolete? Blame Wall Street. Can’t compete and don’t want to? Clearly it’s Wall Street’s fault. Is insufficient reverence and sacrifice being made to divine government? All due to Wall Street greed.
Just think how difficult life would be for the Hollywood hacks and aspiring demagogues if they actually had to think beyond “Wall Street dunnit.”
I can't really imagine that any victorious candidate will try.
It's a weakness in democracy - if you can control the choices, you control the system.
ApatheticNoMore
5-16-15, 12:48pm
A more correct phrasing than Wall Street might be corporate rule that overrides sovereignty and democracy. But that's probably a done deal if Fast Track and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or TTIP (Tranatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) pass, Hillary or no Hillary, Bernie Sanders or no Bernie Sanders. It looks like corporate tribunals will be able to overrule national and local laws (so much for acting locally to change things).
Corporate rule for a system where corporate tribunals have veto power on the laws is simply ACCURATE terminology, a spade is a spade, democracy or even representative government are not accurate terms if they must always be balanced against the ability of corporations to have the final say and overrule them. And it's not an equal balancing either, corporations have the final veto.
It's true it's impossible to say how bad things will get when we can't see the text of the TPP and neither can our legislators except with very stringent conditions that make it impossible for them to make sense of the text. We only know the parts that have been leaked that do suggest corporations will be our new Presidents (that is to say they will have veto power over all laws with their corporate tribunals).
To criticize people for not knowing all the details of secret laws is textbook Catch 22: we can't see the whole of the law because it's secret, means we can always be accused of not knowing all of what the law is about. But leaks are all we have to go on. However select CORPORATIONS have been able to see the text for 6 years while THEY were drafting it. Legislators have not yet been able to see the text of our laws except under extremely limited conditions but corporate leaders have. Fast Track allows very little time to see it, they have to pass the law in order to see what's in it pretty much.
Bernie Sanders on the TPP:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/stop-the-tpp
+1 ANM. True that "Wall Street" is a catch all grouping for all manner of nefarious characters, not all of which actually call New York home. Either way there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that candidates follow a money trail. Decisions like Citizens United accentuated and accelerated that process. Now the TPP, among others, is poised to seal the deal. As far as any of us can know ANM's assessment is spot on. It is the ultimate example of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. IMO, TPP has even more potential for abuse and could be even more damaging than NSA spying, the Patriot Act extension, etc. It really is an obscene corruption of democracy and its on a fast track.
+1 for ANM and +1 for Gregg.
That's why I am so pleased that Bernie's getting such great grassroots support. I hope it continues.
+1 for ANM and +1 for Gregg.
That's why I am so pleased that Bernie's getting such great grassroots support. I hope it continues.
+1
Linda
How about Senator Bernie Sanders in the middle! A voice of reason. Seriously, I don't think anyone from either party will be able to buck Wall Street.
Isn't that funny, I was just about to post about Bernie, out of the blue I seem to be deluged with information about someone I've never heard of who's apparently been preaching to my idealistic choir for 50 years. Any Takers? Be some showstopper if he up and ousted the dueling dynasties.
And +1 to ANM. Every year the over-reach of corporate control becomes more flabbergasting, more insane and more seemingly unstoppable. What, a corporation is a person? What, we're disassembling rules about campaign contributions? WHAT, you're telling me corporate decree now trumps laws of and by the people?
Sometimes I think about the rise and fall of past ruling groups, as a way of reassuring myself that this era of corruption and greed will peak and burst like any other, but ... this time ... it's such an unbelievable juggernaut of escalating power ... On one hand if this goes on, it will kill our world. And on the other, at this point the collapse of the megacorps, if it even happens, will take the whole world down with it.
Sometimes I think about the rise and fall of past ruling groups, as a way of reassuring myself that this era of corruption and greed will peak and burst like any other, but ... this time ... it's such an unbelievable juggernaut of escalating power ... On one hand if this goes on, it will kill our world. And on the other, at this point the collapse of the megacorps, if it even happens, will take the whole world down with it.
When the Visigoths were pouring over the seventh hill I'm willing to bet a lot of people couldn't believe the Roman juggernaut was collapsing. It may be a very small consolation in our lives and smaller still for the thousands of species that have gone extinct, but the world will go on and hopefully it will be populated with folks a little wiser than us. Or at least by folks who are a little less likely to erase history when it becomes inconvenient. And yea, Bernie makes sense to me, too.
To me the difference was that there were Visigoths and Romans. Big Inc. makes no distinction, it has no specific enemy. It ultimately affords power to no one but itself, at the same time that it draws a little power from every one of us. David beat Goliath, but David wasn't feeding Goliath under the table. I don't see this ending well for humanity. Even if Bernie does win.
Bernie against the corporate behemoth? Unless a significant number of us back him up steadfastly, I'm skeptical. But not too skeptical to send his campaign a contribution. You rarely see a politician so engaged with his constituents.
To me the difference was that there were Visigoths and Romans. Big Inc. makes no distinction, it has no specific enemy. It ultimately affords power to no one but itself, at the same time that it draws a little power from every one of us. David beat Goliath, but David wasn't feeding Goliath under the table. I don't see this ending well for humanity. Even if Bernie does win.
I don't disagree kib, but I think its important to remember that there is someone behind every BIG curtain. Big Inc. doesn't exist in a vacuum. The new emperors are BIG shareholders pushing for higher and higher profits (sometimes at any cost) and the executives continually striving to keep those shareholders satiated for another quarter (also sometimes at any cost). The shareholders typically have full immunity to the dirty deeds of their trained minions regardless of how hard they push for those deeds to be done.
I'd be lying to say I understood any motivation that allowed harm to be done purely in the name of profit. There is no logical way to gain any more than a very short term advantage from that tactic. Is it really a good thing to be the emperor of an empire that's burning? In the end all it does is make the things everyone is really after more expensive (food, health, peace...). But I also can't deny that it goes on all the time. At some point that approach will breach the pain threshold and some of the rest of us will become the new Visigoths. Will that revolution happen before irreversible damage is done? I don't know, I hope so...I'm ready.
Maybe the problem is that the emperors are a few Bigwigs, but they're also the rest of us. That's what I mean about feeding Goliath under the table. I rant about this ... but I also have a Vanguard account. A nice convservative balanced portfolio that I root for - a return of 5%, ok that's good, but gosh, the returns were so amazing back when. Let's have 8% and then I can be secure in my retirement! Ooooh ... 18%?? Wow, I could be so comfortable and secure if I could have 18%, I could be safe and not be watching a budget if I had 18%.
I'm totally detached from how/why that could happen, I just innocently and fervently hope it does. So it's not that my motivation is harm, but I have no sense of consequence between my dream and the actions that meet it. And I'd guess there are at least a billion other people participating in the same kind of way.
And I have to be perfectly honest, even though maybe I have more of an inkling of the harm that's being caused than most people ... I still have a Vanguard account. :|( If someone who more or less 'gets it' still isn't willing to give it up, how can the people intentionally sticking their heads in the sand be expected to change?
So it's not that my motivation is harm, but I have no sense of consequence between my dream and the actions that meet it.
We could discuss degrees of guilt or innocence all day without making any progress, but I do agree we can all accept some level of blame. Consequences are more interesting. The end game on our current course is the destruction of the planet. The only one we have. The only one that can keep us alive. Essentially we are committing a drawn out suicide and have made a pact to take everything short of cockroaches with us and we are doing that to gain small amounts of (perceived) comfort and convenience in our daily lives. Stupid is about the most eloquent word I can come up with. For the record I own stocks, drive a car, run my AC when its hot, don't always remember my bag at the grocery store, probably own clothes from Bangladesh, eat bananas in Nebraska in winter... Plausible deniability is a thing of the past. I'm guilty.
The part I'm not grasping is when and why our actual motivation became so egocentric. There's nothing wrong with being or wanting to be rich. In fact a whole lot of cool things have been developed by people who were incentivized by money. I saw some blurb on Facebook (so I know its true) that said the 147 richest people in the world control more wealth that the poorest 3.5 billion people. Regardless of the precise dollars and sense of that, what does it REALLY gain them? Aside from a few creature comforts like avoiding airport security lines and always having that new car smell almost everything I came up with boiled down to health. If you're even relatively wealthy you probably have immediate access to quality health care, clean water, healthy food, an environment free of obvious pollutants, etc. Its not a terribly complicated process to get those same things to most people on the planet so why do we deny that to anyone based purely on cost? Its a damn poor metric. So continues my "liberalization". Don't tell peggy. :moon:
I saw some blurb on Facebook (so I know its true) that said the 147 richest people in the world control more wealth that the poorest 3.5 billion people. Regardless of the precise dollars and sense of that, what does it REALLY gain them?
Scorn?
ApatheticNoMore
5-19-15, 3:21pm
We could discuss degrees of guilt or innocence all day without making any progress, but I do agree we can all accept some level of blame.
some yea, but really to dwell too much on what little tiny role everyone may play absolves those who really are to blame. Hannah Arendt pointed out how futile it was to blame everyone in Germany for @#$ Nazi Germany - and I'm not talking the Eichman's - how it distracted from blaming the truly guilty. Everyone and no one is to blame but in reality there are those who really do have more power than others (if you have trouble accepting this THEY are the ones who actually know what the TPP says for instance) and they should get the blame they so richly deserve. This blaming everyone let's the truly guilty walk.
Maybe a mass movement to change consumer behavior would improve things, ha so would a mass movement to change our government perhaps, to hold criminals accountable (like BP for the gulf) etc.. Individually most things don't amount to much. Whether or not you can sleep at peace at night with your little tiny guilt is one's own darn struggle, but maybe of no larger significance whatsoever.
People can be incentivized by money but I think a lot of people are like me and are only incentivized by it minimally and are really incentivized a lot more by a lot of other things after a point of material needs being met. The world does not work that way, ah well I know that. :) Maybe it breaks down by gender to some degree, I think money symbolizes a lot of things to men that it doesn't so much to women, although it's equally useful to buy things regardless of gender.
ApatheticNoMore
5-19-15, 3:36pm
I saw some blurb on Facebook (so I know its true) that said the 147 richest people in the world control more wealth that the poorest 3.5 billion people. Regardless of the precise dollars and sense of that, what does it REALLY gain them?
power
The part I'm not grasping is when and why our actual motivation became so egocentric.
From the first time one prokaryote shoved another one aside to get a better shot at some tasty complex molecules.
Everything alive is in competition with everything else alive. It's true under capitalism, socialism, feudalism or any other system that will ever be devised. You can regulate it to benefit one group over another. You can decry it all the way to the bank. You can tear down the whole rotten structure to erect a rotten structure of your own. But in the end you can't escape that simple fact of existence.
What I appreciate about capitalism is it's honesty on that point.
We could discuss degrees of guilt or innocence all day without making any progress, but I do agree we can all accept some level of blame. Consequences are more interesting. The end game on our current course is the destruction of the planet. The only one we have. The only one that can keep us alive. Essentially we are committing a drawn out suicide and have made a pact to take everything short of cockroaches with us and we are doing that to gain small amounts of (perceived) comfort and convenience in our daily lives. Stupid is about the most eloquent word I can come up with. For the record I own stocks, drive a car, run my AC when its hot, don't always remember my bag at the grocery store, probably own clothes from Bangladesh, eat bananas in Nebraska in winter... Plausible deniability is a thing of the past. I'm guilty.
The part I'm not grasping is when and why our actual motivation became so egocentric. There's nothing wrong with being or wanting to be rich. In fact a whole lot of cool things have been developed by people who were incentivized by money. I saw some blurb on Facebook (so I know its true) that said the 147 richest people in the world control more wealth that the poorest 3.5 billion people. Regardless of the precise dollars and sense of that, what does it REALLY gain them? Aside from a few creature comforts like avoiding airport security lines and always having that new car smell almost everything I came up with boiled down to health. If you're even relatively wealthy you probably have immediate access to quality health care, clean water, healthy food, an environment free of obvious pollutants, etc. Its not a terribly complicated process to get those same things to most people on the planet so why do we deny that to anyone based purely on cost? Its a damn poor metric. So continues my "liberalization". Don't tell peggy. :moon:
Insidiously winning the war on the status quo. :D
I wasn't really seeking to hand blame to anyone in particular, to me the big problem is that, as we (people of even small financial means involved in this world culture) all stand to benefit just a little bit, no one's exactly enthusiastic about making a connection and pulling the plug on their own little contribution to collapse. Me included. Sure, targeting the 147 would make a much bigger dent than the next 2 billion, but we're all holding up the house of card together and, as long as we don't have to connect with what it means, we like it that way.
LDAHL ... I think you really did hit it ... the thing is, we ARE animals, with instincts and urges, but we're also the smartest little monkeys on earth, vastly more capable of doing damage than anything other than perhaps cosmic or global weather events - which we seem to have a hand in creating as well. A more - dare I say it - conservative attitude toward progress and resource depletion, even if it went against our animal nature, might have served us well.
ApatheticNoMore
5-19-15, 5:29pm
to me the big problem is that, as we (people of even small financial means involved in this world culture) all stand to benefit just a little bit, no one's exactly enthusiastic about making a connection and pulling the plug on their own little contribution to collapse. Me included. Sure, targeting the 147 would make a much bigger dent than the next 2 billion, but we're all holding up the house of card together and, as long as we don't have to connect with what it means, we like it that way.
Connecting to what it means means cutting off your nose to spite your face even when it changes absolutely nothing at all?
Humans are at least as cooperative as they've ever been competitive. They wouldn't have survived without altruistic and self-sacrificing tendencies. But perhaps they are mostly cooperative in small tribal groups which isn't exactly global cooperation.
Connecting to what it means means cutting off your nose to spite your face even when it changes absolutely nothing at all?
Humans are at least as cooperative as they've ever been competitive. They wouldn't have survived without altruistic and self-sacrificing tendencies. But perhaps they are mostly cooperative in small tribal groups which isn't exactly global cooperation. ... I think it might change something if all of us pulled the plug. I do. But I think what you're saying is a corollary of what I'm saying: each of us contributes a crumb to the problem, in exchange for having a loaf to eat. Removing our crumb basically means as individuals we starve. Unless that changes, why would we change either.
My soapbox about it is just what Gregg said ... if our society doesn't change, the planet will make some pretty dramatic changes for us. We need some big shifts that encourage and allow people different choices while still giving them a reasonable life and a sense of pride and security.
Go Bernie, go! :)
From the first time one prokaryote shoved another one aside to get a better shot at some tasty complex molecules.
Everything alive is in competition with everything else alive. It's true under capitalism, socialism, feudalism or any other system that will ever be devised. You can regulate it to benefit one group over another. You can decry it all the way to the bank. You can tear down the whole rotten structure to erect a rotten structure of your own. But in the end you can't escape that simple fact of existence.
What I appreciate about capitalism is it's honesty on that point.
Its effectively true, but at the same time I'm not buying in. Most other animals don't have the ability to overcome the basic survival instincts, but we do. Its probably a good thing that those instincts are still part of our hard wiring, but to let them be the primary driver is nonsensical in most situations. Fight or flight isn't really a necessary trigger in the boardroom. And what about animals like honeybees? They bring pollen back to a collective hive so that all of them sink or swim together. In a sense that's about what we try to accomplish with the federal government in our capitalistic society.
One big difference is that the bees all understand (agree on?) the common goal. We don't have any common goals because our leadership has been either too clueless or too spineless to set any in the face of powerful interests hellbent on accumulation for accumulation's sake. I abhor the whole conspiratorial idea that elected leaders cast every single vote thinking only of how it will benefit the rich and powerful, but then along comes something like the TPP. That certainly doesn't mean every vote from every politician is crooked, but it makes it really hard to believe anyone I voted for has my back.
If we're comparing ourselves to other animals maybe yellow fin tuna would be better to emulate than bees. The school of tuna works down under a school of sardines and pushes them to the surface so there's no place left to run. All the tuna work together to do this, a common goal. Once the food fish are on top every tuna has the opportunity to eat. Some end up in the right place at the right time and get an easy meal and some have to work harder at it, but they all have a shot. An abstruse analogy maybe, but even so its kind of how the capitalism I believe in is supposed to work.
Scorn?
I don't snort very often, but...
We could discuss degrees of guilt or innocence all day without making any progress, but I do agree we can all accept some level of blame. Consequences are more interesting. The end game on our current course is the destruction of the planet. The only one we have. The only one that can keep us alive. Essentially we are committing a drawn out suicide and have made a pact to take everything short of cockroaches with us and we are doing that to gain small amounts of (perceived) comfort and convenience in our daily lives. Stupid is about the most eloquent word I can come up with. For the record I own stocks, drive a car, run my AC when its hot, don't always remember my bag at the grocery store, probably own clothes from Bangladesh, eat bananas in Nebraska in winter... Plausible deniability is a thing of the past. I'm guilty.
The part I'm not grasping is when and why our actual motivation became so egocentric. There's nothing wrong with being or wanting to be rich. In fact a whole lot of cool things have been developed by people who were incentivized by money. I saw some blurb on Facebook (so I know its true) that said the 147 richest people in the world control more wealth that the poorest 3.5 billion people. Regardless of the precise dollars and sense of that, what does it REALLY gain them? Aside from a few creature comforts like avoiding airport security lines and always having that new car smell almost everything I came up with boiled down to health. If you're even relatively wealthy you probably have immediate access to quality health care, clean water, healthy food, an environment free of obvious pollutants, etc. Its not a terribly complicated process to get those same things to most people on the planet so why do we deny that to anyone based purely on cost? Its a damn poor metric. So continues my "liberalization". Don't tell peggy. :moon:
I'm listening...shhhh.
Actually, funny enough I was just thinking as i read what you wrote, "Now why again is that man a republican?"
Its effectively true, but at the same time I'm not buying in. Most other animals don't have the ability to overcome the basic survival instincts, but we do. Its probably a good thing that those instincts are still part of our hard wiring, but to let them be the primary driver is nonsensical in most situations. Fight or flight isn't really a necessary trigger in the boardroom. And what about animals like honeybees? They bring pollen back to a collective hive so that all of them sink or swim together. In a sense that's about what we try to accomplish with the federal government in our capitalistic society.
One big difference is that the bees all understand (agree on?) the common goal. We don't have any common goals because our leadership has been either too clueless or too spineless to set any in the face of powerful interests hellbent on accumulation for accumulation's sake. I abhor the whole conspiratorial idea that elected leaders cast every single vote thinking only of how it will benefit the rich and powerful, but then along comes something like the TPP. That certainly doesn't mean every vote from every politician is crooked, but it makes it really hard to believe anyone I voted for has my back.
If we're comparing ourselves to other animals maybe yellow fin tuna would be better to emulate than bees. The school of tuna works down under a school of sardines and pushes them to the surface so there's no place left to run. All the tuna work together to do this, a common goal. Once the food fish are on top every tuna has the opportunity to eat. Some end up in the right place at the right time and get an easy meal and some have to work harder at it, but they all have a shot. An abstruse analogy maybe, but even so its kind of how the capitalism I believe in is supposed to work.
This is true Gregg. We are all connected, and what happens to someone in wealthy California, and in poorest Mississippi affects us all. Too often some will try to derail the conversation by declaring that 'they' want to take all money from the wealthy and give it to the poor bum takers. Not at all. I certainly don't have any problem with wealthy people. I've been accused of being one myself. I think folks just want to have a more equatable sharing. That's not to say anyone will have 'their' money taken from them. But, raising the minimum wage to a livable wage, having health care for all, doing 'something' about the cost of higher learning...these things will help get to that more equatable living. Not highway robbery at all. Just thoughtful acknowledgement that we really are all in this together.
The thing is, I can't see this refusal by some to raise the minimum wage, or help the cost of higher learning as anything other than simple meanness. These things have been proven to increase profits for the 'makers'. A better educated population is a more productive population, and more money in the pockets of workers means more consuming of the goods and services the wealthy are selling. Walmart for instance could charge a nickle more on all their goods over $1 say, and not only would they be able to give their workers a decent wage and healthcare, but would be able to promote their largess to a grateful community who would flock to their stores to buy their still-cheap crap by the car full. Even I would venture into a Walmart if they paid a decent wage with health care.;)
But you know what, these are business people. They know this. They know they could be hailed as heroes without the loss of a single penny to their bottom line. And would actually gain. So it's just meanness, and contempt for their workers. And contempt for the society as a whole. They pay unlivable wages and force society to pick up the slack (food stamps, Medicaid, other services) If a worker is still making minimum after 6 months of employment, all that's really saying is that they would pay you less if they could.
I'm listening...shhhh.
Actually, funny enough I was just thinking as i read what you wrote, "Now why again is that man a republican?"
I'm not a republican, but I play one on the internet. Kind of funny really, I registered as Independent on my 18th birthday and have never wavered from that. My voting's probably been 50/50 between major party candidates over all those years. The confusion usually comes out just because I kinda like to see how we plan to pay for things before we do them.
But you know what, these are business people. They know this. They know they could be hailed as heroes without the loss of a single penny to their bottom line. And would actually gain. So it's just meanness, and contempt for their workers. And contempt for the society as a whole. They pay unlivable wages and force society to pick up the slack (food stamps, Medicaid, other services) If a worker is still making minimum after 6 months of employment, all that's really saying is that they would pay you less if they could.
I'm not really convinced a mean spirit plays much of a role, but I'm 100% convinced that the bottom line does. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there are lots of ways to look at a bottom line. In the quarterly reporting scenario there just isn't room for long term investments. They show up as capital expenses which lower that bottom line and that's perceived as a bad thing. The well educated workforce that can problem solve, the well treated employee who stays long enough to know how to do several jobs within the company, the well maintained roads/bridges/railways that make it more efficient to move product and lower fleet maintenance costs, the healthy employee who drastically reduces employee burden, the 'smart' grid that reduces operating and overhead costs... We could all name a whole laundry list of things that would benefit everyone for generations if we would just expand our scope to look at the bigger picture, but that cost money to implement up front.
Its the big shareholders and the financial media that constantly pressure for higher performance which really translates into fewer employees and less equipment doing more work. The CEOs of the world are hardly choir boys, but at the same time they all answer to boards of directors populated by or answering to shareholders. IMO, that's where the model most commonly breaks down. At some point the uber-rich will be the only ones who can afford education or transportation or clean water or whatever. That obviously won't work for long. The ironic part is that if we invest the money now everyone benefits proportionally later. The proverbial rising tide or the more you sow now the more you reap later. Maybe there are just too many people in this dyslexic society that don't understand the difference between reap and rape.
ApatheticNoMore
5-20-15, 2:08pm
I'm not a republican, but I play one on the internet.
come on now Gregg's keep right logo is pointing left, unlike Hillary's that is most definitely pointing right (and she probably means it as well). Gregg for president.
Walmart for instance could charge a nickle more on all their goods over $1 say, and not only would they be able to give their workers a decent wage and healthcare, but would be able to promote their largess to a grateful community who would flock to their stores to buy their still-cheap crap by the car full. Even I would venture into a Walmart if they paid a decent wage with health care.;)
But you know what, these are business people. They know this. They know they could be hailed as heroes without the loss of a single penny to their bottom line. And would actually gain. So it's just meanness, and contempt for their workers. And contempt for the society as a whole. They pay unlivable wages and force society to pick up the slack (food stamps, Medicaid, other services) If a worker is still making minimum after 6 months of employment, all that's really saying is that they would pay you less if they could.
So the only thing keeping them from implementing your proposed business model and gaining public adulation while possibly improving net profitability is gratuitous, self-destructive cruelty? They’re so irredeemably evil they act against their own self-interest for the pleasure of beating down the working poor? Their hatred outweighs even their greed?
Its effectively true, but at the same time I'm not buying in. Most other animals don't have the ability to overcome the basic survival instincts, but we do. Its probably a good thing that those instincts are still part of our hard wiring, but to let them be the primary driver is nonsensical in most situations. Fight or flight isn't really a necessary trigger in the boardroom. And what about animals like honeybees? They bring pollen back to a collective hive so that all of them sink or swim together. In a sense that's about what we try to accomplish with the federal government in our capitalistic society.
One big difference is that the bees all understand (agree on?) the common goal. We don't have any common goals because our leadership has been either too clueless or too spineless to set any in the face of powerful interests hellbent on accumulation for accumulation's sake. I abhor the whole conspiratorial idea that elected leaders cast every single vote thinking only of how it will benefit the rich and powerful, but then along comes something like the TPP. That certainly doesn't mean every vote from every politician is crooked, but it makes it really hard to believe anyone I voted for has my back.
If we're comparing ourselves to other animals maybe yellow fin tuna would be better to emulate than bees. The school of tuna works down under a school of sardines and pushes them to the surface so there's no place left to run. All the tuna work together to do this, a common goal. Once the food fish are on top every tuna has the opportunity to eat. Some end up in the right place at the right time and get an easy meal and some have to work harder at it, but they all have a shot. An abstruse analogy maybe, but even so its kind of how the capitalism I believe in is supposed to work.
There is certainly scope for altruistic and cooperative behavior in natural selection. Anything that serves to pass on your genes to (whether from you directly or through relatives) another generation has utility. And there certainly are saints and heroes out there with "the ability to overcome basic survival instincts". But on the whole, it's not realistic (or perhaps even desirable) to demand a sort of collective altruism. We are in fact in constant competition with one another on a number of levels, although it's subtler than a pack of wolves fighting over a carcass. It may make sense for you to take some level of interest in my welfare if only to keep me from reaching a level of desperation that might make me dangerous to you.
It may make sense for you to take some level of interest in my welfare if only to keep me from reaching a level of desperation that might make me dangerous to you.
You would think that should be enough. Personally I'd would like to see everyone lead happy, healthy, satisfying lives. More than anything I'd like to have one for myself. The most efficient way I know of to implement the 80/20 rule and get most of the way there quickly is to remove as many external threats as possible. If you're on your way to the life you want you have very little to gain by doing things that deny me going after the same goal. Threat removed.
If you happen to be wealthy enough to own the plant/farm/store/etc. that I work in and you do things that assist me in reaching my goal there's a better than average chance that I will reciprocate with performance that makes you more efficient and more profitable. Cooperative behavior driven by self-interest on both side. Either of us can be selfish; there's no need for altruism to enter into the equation (not that it would be bad, just not necessary). Its pretty easy to do cost/benefit analysis. On one side a big problem is that cost cutting instinctively starts with the highest cost items even if they provide the most benefit long term. Same is often true on the reverse with benefit analysis, the plans are laid based solely on the current day cost rather than the future benefits. Its really just the difference between spending and investing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.