Town Halls - A Momentous Change in the Socio-Political Lands
Moderator: Super Moderators
Town Halls - A Momentous Change in the Socio-Political Lands
This is a very relevant article which shows some of the fault lines of classic liberalism, republicanism and conservatism -and how a spontaneous movement may be brewing as witnessed in the current town hall activism - which, if genuine - may be signalling a sea change fueled by the influence of post technology/internet.
A parallel is drawn in this article - with what may be a social movement similar in scope to the revolution introduced with the publishing of the Gutenburg Bible 400 years ago - and the rise of liberalism.
...from the article:
"If the tea parties and town halls are merely an excrescence of the two party system, then the free-market dialogue either has not taken root yet or is being thwarted once again. If however they are a result of FA Hayek's "spontaneous order" (with initial help from libertarian congressman Ron Paul), then our analysis may include the liberating effect of technology - as we will explain, below. It becomes an important step toward more freedom and freer markets.
Let's elaborate just a little. A big problem for America (and eventually Europe) is the collision of the Internet with the political system. In America and Britain, the two parties - conservative and liberal - are statist. Participants in each wish to involve the state in various aspects of the body politic. Liberals are perhaps more obvious about it, but conservatives who believe in a full-on military-industrial complex including lots of overseas involvement, an active war on drugs at home, plus ever-expanding homeland security policing are no less involved with growing government than the opposition.
The trouble with Anglo-American politics generally, then, is that despite a government activist two-party system, many if not most Americans want limited government, fewer overseas military operations and more private sector opportunities. America is not Europe; the American culture is entrepreneurial and the American instinct is small-d democratic. How has the Internet interacted with these trends?"
and...
"What's the real import? We think the monetary elite is fighting for its collective life. The Internet is gradually undermining each and every dominant social theme. Without the ability to promote its point of view seamlessly through the mainstream media, the monetary elite has few ways or reinforcing control or promoting a credible, globalist worldview. Even the central banking paradigm into which it has sunk so much time and effort, is threatened.
Conclusion: We don't think the monetary elite can win against the liberating power of the Internet, at least not for the foreseeable future - the ramifications of which they apparently never expected, at least not to this degree. We think in our lifetimes we will see the monetary elite take a step backward as they did after the Gutenberg press. We think in our lifetimes we will see the remaking or outright crumbling of the European union, the quasi-renewal of the American republic, a less militaristic world and an economic system that may include a market based money standard. Of course all this sounds far-fetched. But not so far fetched as yesterday."
Article here:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009081159 ... eling.html
Related Articles here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/487/Obama-f ... erges.html
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009081860 ... -care.html
A parallel is drawn in this article - with what may be a social movement similar in scope to the revolution introduced with the publishing of the Gutenburg Bible 400 years ago - and the rise of liberalism.
...from the article:
"If the tea parties and town halls are merely an excrescence of the two party system, then the free-market dialogue either has not taken root yet or is being thwarted once again. If however they are a result of FA Hayek's "spontaneous order" (with initial help from libertarian congressman Ron Paul), then our analysis may include the liberating effect of technology - as we will explain, below. It becomes an important step toward more freedom and freer markets.
Let's elaborate just a little. A big problem for America (and eventually Europe) is the collision of the Internet with the political system. In America and Britain, the two parties - conservative and liberal - are statist. Participants in each wish to involve the state in various aspects of the body politic. Liberals are perhaps more obvious about it, but conservatives who believe in a full-on military-industrial complex including lots of overseas involvement, an active war on drugs at home, plus ever-expanding homeland security policing are no less involved with growing government than the opposition.
The trouble with Anglo-American politics generally, then, is that despite a government activist two-party system, many if not most Americans want limited government, fewer overseas military operations and more private sector opportunities. America is not Europe; the American culture is entrepreneurial and the American instinct is small-d democratic. How has the Internet interacted with these trends?"
and...
"What's the real import? We think the monetary elite is fighting for its collective life. The Internet is gradually undermining each and every dominant social theme. Without the ability to promote its point of view seamlessly through the mainstream media, the monetary elite has few ways or reinforcing control or promoting a credible, globalist worldview. Even the central banking paradigm into which it has sunk so much time and effort, is threatened.
Conclusion: We don't think the monetary elite can win against the liberating power of the Internet, at least not for the foreseeable future - the ramifications of which they apparently never expected, at least not to this degree. We think in our lifetimes we will see the monetary elite take a step backward as they did after the Gutenberg press. We think in our lifetimes we will see the remaking or outright crumbling of the European union, the quasi-renewal of the American republic, a less militaristic world and an economic system that may include a market based money standard. Of course all this sounds far-fetched. But not so far fetched as yesterday."
Article here:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009081159 ... eling.html
Related Articles here:
http://www.thedailybell.com/487/Obama-f ... erges.html
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2009081860 ... -care.html
The comparison to the Gutenberg press, and the reformation is thought provoking, but I'm not convinced the internet (& technology in general) is "liberating". That's the big promise that never came true. I guess it depends on how "liberty" is defined.
In fact, the argument can be made that the internet has stiffled independent thought/problem solving. When the day comes that the "monetary elite" have had enough, they will call up their fraternal brothers at AT&T, then with the flip of a switch the internet will flicker out for the common folks. Since all other means of communication will have been dismantled, what then? Have you used a pay phone lately?
We are better off cultivating more durable, decentralized methods and mediums, at a local level.
In fact, the argument can be made that the internet has stiffled independent thought/problem solving. When the day comes that the "monetary elite" have had enough, they will call up their fraternal brothers at AT&T, then with the flip of a switch the internet will flicker out for the common folks. Since all other means of communication will have been dismantled, what then? Have you used a pay phone lately?
We are better off cultivating more durable, decentralized methods and mediums, at a local level.
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-21-2009 10:29 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
I was just reading this....
Vanishing Liberties
by Philip Giraldi, August 20, 2009
If the seemingly unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ever do come to a close and a new war with Iran, Somalia, or Sudan can somehow be avoided, the most serious long term damage from the conflicts will be to the fundamental freedoms that Americans have cherished for more than two hundred years. The erosion of America’s liberties has been driven by fear of terrorism but it is enabled by leaps in technology coupled with new legislation and a police state mentality that have made every citizen a target. Hate crimes and laws targeting the internet provide a framework that relies on advanced monitoring technology to criminalize behavior that would have been considered off limits for privacy reasons ten years ago.
The National Security Agency can monitor every phone call made in the United States and quite likely every e-mail. European security agencies have the same capabilities and have gone far down the road of legitimizing state intrusion into private activities, limiting free speech and free association. In Britain, most cities and highways are now monitored by CCTV cameras and the police have begun to use aerial drones to observe and record demonstrations of groups considered to be extreme including the right wing British National Party. New legislation in Germany will require all internet users to be licensed with a backtracking feature that will enable the government to determine where any internet transmission originated. The new regulations will require all users to have a tamper proof internet ID and will be enforced by special police. All telecommunications data, to include both internet and telephone, is already retained by the German service providers for six months, a law that has been in effect since 2008. The government can obtain the stored information by court order. It is particularly interesting to note what German politicians and officials said in support of the new legislation. One commented that it is necessary to stop the internet from becoming a "lawless chaos room." Another described the internet as a "source of criminality, terrorism, and much similar filth." Yet another said "What is illegal offline is also illegal online."
Countries like China and Iran already control the servers for internet as well as the cell phone centers in their country and have not been shy about shutting down communications. In many places in Europe internet services are often screened by software that blocks certain websites and the use of words or phrases that are considered objectionable. This screening is also becoming common in hotels and other public places that offer internet services in the United States. But what is really dangerous is the combination of technologies that make it possible to control the internet with legislation that gives the authorities the ability to go after users who are deemed to be breaking the law, such as is happening in Germany.
Can there be any doubt that the monitoring of the internet to control "terrorism" and "filth" will in fairly short order also be used to repress the viewpoints of individuals and groups that are considered to be politically unacceptable? And what better weapon to use against dissidents than the criminal justice system, most particularly the hate crime legislation that is becoming both increasingly more common and more draconian in both the United States and in Europe? Hate crimes are the antithesis of the old principles that there is "equal justice under law" and that "justice is blind." They essentially create specially protected classes of people within the criminal justice system, permitting selective enforcement of the law. Normally when there is an crime, the police investigate and make an arrest and the judiciary prosecutes. The perpetrator is punished in a manner proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. But if an incident is deemed a hate crime, i.e. that it may have been motivated by prejudice or bigotry, the penalties are harsher and the federal government has the option of trying the suspect if the state court for some reason fails to convict. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid justified the dismantling of two thousand years of jurisprudence recently, saying ""There is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim." Reid’s interesting interpretation notwithstanding, many would argue that hate crimes create an unconstitutional special tier of justice while the ability to try someone twice constitutes double jeopardy.
Hate crimes in Europe, Canada, and Australia include speech. It is illegal to criticize any ethnic or religious group, homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, or the elderly. The European Union even defines anti-Semitism, including in its definition any criticism alleging that Jews might be more loyal to Israel than to their own country of residence. An Australian professor who wrote a letter criticizing large scale immigration from Africa because it would bring an increase in crime and social problems was summoned before the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and charged with a hate crime. Another Australian was arrested and charged when he wrote a letter complaining that the numerous Israeli art students selling their wares in Perth might be engaged in espionage. In Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress complained that demonstrators criticizing of Israel’s invasion of Gaza "demonized Jews and Israelis" and demanded an investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Hate crimes in many countries punish not only one’s actions, but also one’s motives and even one’s thoughts, if they can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a judge or prosecutor.
America’s new HR 1913 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act" together with Senate bill S-909 claim only to prohibit actual crimes and not regulate free speech, but it isn’t necessarily so. The Senate bill specifically includes "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" as a criminal offense. The legislation is drawn so loosely that a district attorney can proceed in virtually any case where there is even a suspicion that something hateful might have motivated the perpetrator. How some activist judges will exploit the lack of any strict guidelines can easily be imagined. Membership in groups that have what are regarded as extremist policies has been ruled to be enough to bring a prosecution. And sometimes not even that "extremist." A Pennsylvania hate crime prosecution involved Christians who protested a homosexual gathering by carrying signs and singing hymns. They were charged with felonies.
As should be obvious, free speech on certain issues will quickly run headlong into the hate laws, and not surprisingly, the side that can hire the lawyers to make its case will likely win, First Amendment be damned. The Anti-Defamation League, which has been a strong supporter of all hate crime legislation, has made it clear that it considers criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism and therefore a hate crime. Some leading supporters of the laws have also explicitly included any opposition to Zionism, which they equate to denying Israel’s right to exist, and any comparison of Israeli behavior with Nazi Germany. Pro-Israeli groups have been extremely active in promoting hate crime legislation because of their belief that such laws can be used to mitigate criticism of Israel, but the real issue is that the conjunction of hate legislation and the technical ability to regulate the mechanisms of dissent like the internet are creating a new dynamic in which many groups and even governments will be able to exploit the legal system to shield themselves from criticism.
So welcome to the new world order. In five years, all internet will likely be monitored and regulated, following the German model. Hate crime legislation will make it illegal to criticize any group or country if it can plausibly or even implausibly be construed that such criticism reflects bias, permitting judges to silence anyone who opposes the status quo. Together, the technology and the new laws will quite possibly put the websites that readers of Antiwar.com peruse daily out of business.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/200 ... liberties/
In regards the Town Halls, it's not much of a stretch to say they in and of themselves are becoming defined as "hate crimes."
Vanishing Liberties
by Philip Giraldi, August 20, 2009
If the seemingly unending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ever do come to a close and a new war with Iran, Somalia, or Sudan can somehow be avoided, the most serious long term damage from the conflicts will be to the fundamental freedoms that Americans have cherished for more than two hundred years. The erosion of America’s liberties has been driven by fear of terrorism but it is enabled by leaps in technology coupled with new legislation and a police state mentality that have made every citizen a target. Hate crimes and laws targeting the internet provide a framework that relies on advanced monitoring technology to criminalize behavior that would have been considered off limits for privacy reasons ten years ago.
The National Security Agency can monitor every phone call made in the United States and quite likely every e-mail. European security agencies have the same capabilities and have gone far down the road of legitimizing state intrusion into private activities, limiting free speech and free association. In Britain, most cities and highways are now monitored by CCTV cameras and the police have begun to use aerial drones to observe and record demonstrations of groups considered to be extreme including the right wing British National Party. New legislation in Germany will require all internet users to be licensed with a backtracking feature that will enable the government to determine where any internet transmission originated. The new regulations will require all users to have a tamper proof internet ID and will be enforced by special police. All telecommunications data, to include both internet and telephone, is already retained by the German service providers for six months, a law that has been in effect since 2008. The government can obtain the stored information by court order. It is particularly interesting to note what German politicians and officials said in support of the new legislation. One commented that it is necessary to stop the internet from becoming a "lawless chaos room." Another described the internet as a "source of criminality, terrorism, and much similar filth." Yet another said "What is illegal offline is also illegal online."
Countries like China and Iran already control the servers for internet as well as the cell phone centers in their country and have not been shy about shutting down communications. In many places in Europe internet services are often screened by software that blocks certain websites and the use of words or phrases that are considered objectionable. This screening is also becoming common in hotels and other public places that offer internet services in the United States. But what is really dangerous is the combination of technologies that make it possible to control the internet with legislation that gives the authorities the ability to go after users who are deemed to be breaking the law, such as is happening in Germany.
Can there be any doubt that the monitoring of the internet to control "terrorism" and "filth" will in fairly short order also be used to repress the viewpoints of individuals and groups that are considered to be politically unacceptable? And what better weapon to use against dissidents than the criminal justice system, most particularly the hate crime legislation that is becoming both increasingly more common and more draconian in both the United States and in Europe? Hate crimes are the antithesis of the old principles that there is "equal justice under law" and that "justice is blind." They essentially create specially protected classes of people within the criminal justice system, permitting selective enforcement of the law. Normally when there is an crime, the police investigate and make an arrest and the judiciary prosecutes. The perpetrator is punished in a manner proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. But if an incident is deemed a hate crime, i.e. that it may have been motivated by prejudice or bigotry, the penalties are harsher and the federal government has the option of trying the suspect if the state court for some reason fails to convict. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid justified the dismantling of two thousand years of jurisprudence recently, saying ""There is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim." Reid’s interesting interpretation notwithstanding, many would argue that hate crimes create an unconstitutional special tier of justice while the ability to try someone twice constitutes double jeopardy.
Hate crimes in Europe, Canada, and Australia include speech. It is illegal to criticize any ethnic or religious group, homosexuals, the disabled, gypsies, or the elderly. The European Union even defines anti-Semitism, including in its definition any criticism alleging that Jews might be more loyal to Israel than to their own country of residence. An Australian professor who wrote a letter criticizing large scale immigration from Africa because it would bring an increase in crime and social problems was summoned before the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and charged with a hate crime. Another Australian was arrested and charged when he wrote a letter complaining that the numerous Israeli art students selling their wares in Perth might be engaged in espionage. In Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress complained that demonstrators criticizing of Israel’s invasion of Gaza "demonized Jews and Israelis" and demanded an investigation by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Hate crimes in many countries punish not only one’s actions, but also one’s motives and even one’s thoughts, if they can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a judge or prosecutor.
America’s new HR 1913 "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act" together with Senate bill S-909 claim only to prohibit actual crimes and not regulate free speech, but it isn’t necessarily so. The Senate bill specifically includes "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" as a criminal offense. The legislation is drawn so loosely that a district attorney can proceed in virtually any case where there is even a suspicion that something hateful might have motivated the perpetrator. How some activist judges will exploit the lack of any strict guidelines can easily be imagined. Membership in groups that have what are regarded as extremist policies has been ruled to be enough to bring a prosecution. And sometimes not even that "extremist." A Pennsylvania hate crime prosecution involved Christians who protested a homosexual gathering by carrying signs and singing hymns. They were charged with felonies.
As should be obvious, free speech on certain issues will quickly run headlong into the hate laws, and not surprisingly, the side that can hire the lawyers to make its case will likely win, First Amendment be damned. The Anti-Defamation League, which has been a strong supporter of all hate crime legislation, has made it clear that it considers criticism of Israel to be anti-Semitism and therefore a hate crime. Some leading supporters of the laws have also explicitly included any opposition to Zionism, which they equate to denying Israel’s right to exist, and any comparison of Israeli behavior with Nazi Germany. Pro-Israeli groups have been extremely active in promoting hate crime legislation because of their belief that such laws can be used to mitigate criticism of Israel, but the real issue is that the conjunction of hate legislation and the technical ability to regulate the mechanisms of dissent like the internet are creating a new dynamic in which many groups and even governments will be able to exploit the legal system to shield themselves from criticism.
So welcome to the new world order. In five years, all internet will likely be monitored and regulated, following the German model. Hate crime legislation will make it illegal to criticize any group or country if it can plausibly or even implausibly be construed that such criticism reflects bias, permitting judges to silence anyone who opposes the status quo. Together, the technology and the new laws will quite possibly put the websites that readers of Antiwar.com peruse daily out of business.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/200 ... liberties/
In regards the Town Halls, it's not much of a stretch to say they in and of themselves are becoming defined as "hate crimes."
On the other hand, I would be more inclined to believe this statement if, you know, antiwar.com didn't continually deny Israel's right to exist. That's pretty much their blind spot. But it's undeniable that the liberal Jewish community has been very supportive of this type of legislation.Some leading supporters of the laws have also explicitly included any opposition to Zionism, which they equate to denying Israel’s right to exist
As far as internet freedom, is it possible for corporations/governments to block P2P networking? - or other strategies? They can't kill or suppress all of us.
http://www.internetfreedom.org/taxonomy/term/22
Yah. This hate crimes legislation with more federal government intrusion into states is ominous. A move right up there with the 'war on drugs' 'war on crime' 'war on terrorism'.
Where will the eagles go, when all the parrots are in cages.
http://www.internetfreedom.org/taxonomy/term/22
Yah. This hate crimes legislation with more federal government intrusion into states is ominous. A move right up there with the 'war on drugs' 'war on crime' 'war on terrorism'.
Where will the eagles go, when all the parrots are in cages.
Linnea wrote: As far as internet freedom, is it possible for corporations/governments to block P2P networking? - or other strategies? They can't kill or suppress all of us.
http://www.internetfreedom.org/taxonomy/term/22
Yah. This hate crimes legislation with more federal government intrusion into states is ominous. A move right up there with the 'war on drugs' 'war on crime' 'war on terrorism'.
Where will the eagles go, when all the parrots are in cages.
I'm not a network engineer, however I believe P2P would be useful as a form of extremely localized communication.
Of course we'll set aside the fact that every piece of hardware required for such a thing is "provided" by global corporations.
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-21-2009 03:07 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Originally posted by SquidInk
We are better off cultivating more durable, decentralized methods and mediums, at a local level.
Do you have your ham radio license yet? (actually you do not even need one if you're a pirate). Or at least some equipment - like a HT Radio (Handie Talkie)? Radio waves are a free medium. Wouldn't hurt to learn morse code. You can get that in and out with a simple homemade crystal radio.
One of the reasons I am always promoting 'the peoples airwaves'.
On the topic of the 'spontaneous' push back, or possible 'turning point' activism which we may be seeing in these town hall meetings - do you think it possible this is a genuine social movement/social change?
The point was raised that this was a continuation of the movement inspired by Ron Paul - who did get as much as 10% of the 'vote'. It does seem to be a movement - a push back against hierarchical top-down control. That would include control by governments and corporations. Monarchies, and churches - crumbled in the 'classical liberalism' movement.
The point was raised that this was a continuation of the movement inspired by Ron Paul - who did get as much as 10% of the 'vote'. It does seem to be a movement - a push back against hierarchical top-down control. That would include control by governments and corporations. Monarchies, and churches - crumbled in the 'classical liberalism' movement.
Linnea wrote: On the topic of the 'spontaneous' push back, or possible 'turning point' activism which we may be seeing in these town hall meetings - do you think it possible this is a genuine social movement/social change?
I'm tending more and more to think so. In part because the reaction against it has been so vociferous. The hostility, the mocking outrage, has just been incredible.
What are they afraid of? If the Democrats believed people wanted their health care, they'd use their majorities to push it through. They haven't done that, I believe -- at least, not yet -- because they know the opposition is real.
IMO, no, this (heavily top down orchestrated) "movement" may have emotion behind it at the grass roots level, but it flails at the branches instead of digging the root. It will result in no social change - unless the PTB manage to bring the people to violent confrontation with one another. Then the result will be a negative change - like a FEMA commanded internment of many "domestic terrorists", like us.
I'm not sure this is an extension of the Paul movement, in fact it could be used to discredit him should he continue to be disruptive.
The fact that these town hall meetings/tea bag affairs are being heralded by the "conservative" elements in the media hints at the composition & origin of those groups. That same element wanted nothing to with Paul during the election, and still refuses to admit that his message had any merit what-so-ever (right, racehorse?).
When these protesters are successfully branded as disgruntled bible wielding "free market" racists, then we'll hear Ron Paul's name associated with them... right around some election, I'm sure.
I'm not sure this is an extension of the Paul movement, in fact it could be used to discredit him should he continue to be disruptive.
The fact that these town hall meetings/tea bag affairs are being heralded by the "conservative" elements in the media hints at the composition & origin of those groups. That same element wanted nothing to with Paul during the election, and still refuses to admit that his message had any merit what-so-ever (right, racehorse?).
When these protesters are successfully branded as disgruntled bible wielding "free market" racists, then we'll hear Ron Paul's name associated with them... right around some election, I'm sure.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Linnea wrote: Do you have your ham radio license yet? (actually you do not even need one if you're a pirate). Or at least some equipment - like a HT Radio (Handie Talkie)? Radio waves are a free medium. Wouldn't hurt to learn morse code. You can get that in and out with a simple homemade crystal radio.
One of the reasons I am always promoting 'the peoples airwaves'.
Yes, radio is a much more suitable vehicle for the dispersal of dissentient information. I do not have a HAM license.
Corporate pathways like Blogger, YouTube, Yahoo, MSN, Google Video, Gmail, AT&T cannot be trusted.
Don't take my word for it, ask Sibel Edmonds. Her SITE was recently blocked.
My Blog Site http://123realchange.blogspot.com is now blocked by Google’s Blogger. They will not let me post during this most sensitive period, when I am about to provide deposition on Foreign US government illegal operations in the United States!
I believe the site is back now, but none the less...
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-21-2009 02:57 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
HB3 wrote: They haven't done that, I believe -- at least, not yet -- because they know the opposition is real.
You are talking about the same "people" who have allowed ten years of unchecked criminal mayhem, around the world (which happened to be in the interest of the corporations), in the name of "democracy".
Now these same people have a moral objection to state run health care (which happens to run contrary to corporate interests/profits), so they are downtown shouting at their reps?
Very convenient for the PTB.
Last edited by SquidInk on 08-21-2009 02:35 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Your cynicism is probably well placed. However -we will have to wait and see what happens. The 60s 'revolution' did bring many changes - most of it eventually co-opted, but certainly not all.
This was an interesting point in the first article:
"Where can Americans go? In the past, we posed the question as to what would happen to America once the electorate had experienced a full cycle of presidential politics, both Republican and Democratic, playing out over the Internet. We believed that once this had occurred, the entire right-left/conservative-liberal paradigm would begin to fragment. The American electorate would begin to see that neither part was anti-government and the great social compact forged during the past century - one based more on media myths than reality - would begin to collapse."
This was an interesting point in the first article:
"Where can Americans go? In the past, we posed the question as to what would happen to America once the electorate had experienced a full cycle of presidential politics, both Republican and Democratic, playing out over the Internet. We believed that once this had occurred, the entire right-left/conservative-liberal paradigm would begin to fragment. The American electorate would begin to see that neither part was anti-government and the great social compact forged during the past century - one based more on media myths than reality - would begin to collapse."
Well, you've heard the expression, "not in my backyard." That's probably coming into play.SquidInk wrote: You are talking about the same "people" who have allowed ten years of unchecked criminal mayhem, around the world (which happened to be in the interest of the corporations), in the name of "democracy".
Now these same people have a moral objection to state run health care (which happens to run contrary to corporate interests/profits), so they are downtown shouting at their reps?
Very convenient for the PTB.
Also, unfortunately, it's not running contrary to corporate interests and profits, since Huffpost revealed last week Obama made a back-room deal with the drug companies not to bargain for lower drug prices, which would be of ACTUAL benefit to people, in exchange for, guess what? Campaign money.
And regarding Ron Paul, I think there's a lot of Paulian energy and people in the movement. This was the thesis of some article I posted awhile ago, though I can't remember what -- that it was more of a Ron Paul than Talk Radio movement, and that, for example, when the Republican Party tried to mobilize the rabble for McCain, it didn't really work, because no one cared. Not to this degree.
Regarding those drug prices. I was having ear problems last year, and basically they prescribe the same thing for everyone and everything -- vinegar-based steroid drops. These were about twenty bucks a bottle. I went to get my ears checked last week and the guy said that the one company that produces these drops has now raised the price to about $300 a bottle -- it's literally worth more than its weight in gold.
The other part of the deal they apparently struck was no importing cheaper drugs from Canada.
Last edited by HB3 on 08-21-2009 04:15 PM, edited 1 time in total.