You keep talking about democracy, but are you sure that means what you think it does? I think the word you're looking for is 'plutocracy'.
I don't believe for a second that it really matters whom you pick. Perhaps on a very small scale, but I hope you don't imagine anyone other than big business being in power.
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
I would have to say that the George Bush regime was sure attempting to move the government into a plutocracy. And I have to say Kate, you do a fine job using football as a metaphor to explain the dire situation of the form of government known as Democracy.
I would also have to say, that the Republican party was bamboozled into thinking that George and his ilk were representing them. Because, in a democracy there are more than one party involved and a push/pull that pretty much keeps things moving in the correct direction as suggested by our constitution. A plutocracy is NOT about two or more parties representing the ideas of the people and tussling it out to see which ideas we like more. A plutocracy is when the rich get richer without regard to the people (including the majority of the Republican party who are actually not rich).
But just so you know, I'm a Democrat...born and raise. And tonight I'm off to caucus in Colorado (this is will be a new experience for me since we used to have primaries). I'll be blogging on the experience on my own site later.
It looks like democracy, because you get to choose. My issue is that there is only a select group of very rich people from whom you get to choose.
From the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama:
As of March 2007, the Washington Post estimated that Barack Obama was the least wealthy of the major 2008 Presidential candidates, with a net worth of between $1 and $2.5 million, depending on the ultimate sales figures for Obama's book The Audacity of Hope.
You said:
A plutocracy is NOT about two or more parties representing the ideas of the people and tussling it out to see which ideas we like more.
Yeah, now if only they would talk about ideas which actually matter to the people. As soon as both parties agree on something it doesn't matter what the entire populace thinks of it, you're f----'ed as they say here ;-) My point is that they agree on the stuff that matter to the corporations - gay marriage is not an interesting issue for corporations, so thay's free to become an issue the parties can differentiate on.
Chomsky has a nice article about it (though it is somewhat long): http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm
It's a bit old (2004) so it talks about Bush/Kerry, but I don't think things have changed that much in just four years ;-)
Totally agree about everyone voting. I will not be voting as I'm not American and live in Britain, but it so annoys me when people don't vote during general elections in Britain. Especially women who don't vote, because the things that the suffragettes had to go through to get the right to vote is staggering.
I noticed in recent years that a lot of people can't seem to find a good reason to vote, it appears to be a global thing- nobody believes politicians anymore (probably with good reason) and there's a general feeling that things are going downhill no matter how we vote. So I'll give you my good (I think) reason to vote:
A couple of years ago we had elections here, the first time I was of age to vote. I remember pondering the same thing, what the point was in voting when it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are "worthy". I'm not much for politics, I don't have the time or patience to follow on what the candidates are doing throughout the years so that I could have a well-founded opinion on them all by the time elections come around. And what sort of justice would I be doing any of them if I voted without getting a good grasp of what they stand for?
But here is my answer to myself, and my pitch to you on why you should vote despite all that:
You live in a democracy, a place where it was decided that leaders would be chosen by the majority of people. And by being a citizen you are obligated to abide that law like every other law. If a law doesn't suit you, then you can protest it in a democratic manner.
This sounds like an obvious thing, but it's crucial to remember. Not voting means that you decide that because you don't like the results of the system, you refuse to take part in it. Not voting means that you are expressing your discontent in a non-democratic manner. Once people do that, once people stop acting in a democratic way, then what you are left with is anarchy- lack of law. People doing what they want because they disagree with what is.
Now, I'm not calling anyone an anarchist or anything and this isn't meant as an attack against anyone in particular. This is just a reminder that even though not voting is a passive act, it means the system put some power in your hands, perhaps a very small amount- but power nonetheless, and you choose to drop it on the ground and let whoever comes around take it.
There's two big problems there: One is that if many people do that even small amounts of power can pile up and become a significant force, and the other is that being a cynic (which you probably are if you are having this problem to begin with), do you really trust all those other people out there with that power more than you trust yourself? I wouldn't.
(Damn, that turned out a long reason... Kudos to you if you read this far down... :P)
'The football of democracy...'LOL! I don't know how much of anything will get resolved in all of the primaries today with Uber Tuesday, but it would be interesting if for the first time in my voting lifetime the PA primary (April) actually mattered.
Thought-provoking posts by both Laura and TheWeyrd1. Something that's on my mind of late- what protective measures are in place to insure that all elected officials are working on behalf of America, and not just for foreign, or even unconstitutional, interests? I wish I had more faith in our voters. Of course many people have argued that the current administration mostly serves the plutocracy and related foreign interests. I fear that even scarier possibilities may exist down the road. And yes. It could get worse.
I appreciate your zeal and ethusiasm for turning out the vote--it's important and, as a someone who wants to see this country move away from the hubris of the Bush years, I'm happy to have you trumpeting the d/Democratic cause.
But, when you stay stuff like this:
The 15th Amendment gave black men the right to vote, finally, and the 19th Amendment in 1920--okay--finally gave women the right to vote.
I find it hard to support your efforts. Those comments are, at best, misleading...and, at worst, a complete distortion of American history to score political points.
Your argument completely ignores the Jim Crow era following the passage of the 15th Amendment...as if the amendments passage meant that black folks could exercise their rights as freely as women (or, to be more precise, white women) could after the passage of the 19th Amendment. That's not true and you know that's not true...so quit suggesting otherwise.
Thanks,
pecola
-----
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Well said, Pecola. I don't know why some people feel the need to play "Opression Olympics" during this election cycle, or act like it's about gender versus race. I know school history books are deleting almost all mention of Jim Crow laws and the reasons for the Civil Rights Movement, but I think most people who keep playing the gender/race card know the truth.
What facts do you have that schools are all of the sudden omitting the Civil Rights Movement from school books? Why in the world would schools remove a significant portion of our nation's history and thereby omitting one of the largest minorities? As someone who went to college studying history/anthropology, I'm positive this statement is not accurate.
The Jim Crow laws are an entirely different, complicated issue though. The way I followed her discussion was that she was commending the progress made by the government in granting the rights to African-Americans and women to vote. She could have tossed out a comment on how oppression still occurred, but that was not the point of the discussion.
While Jim Crow laws were horrible, the fact that they existed in some areas does not discount the strides made by the Federal government in amending the Constitution. I do not feel that one always has to bring up an injustice when mentioning a positive change. That only serves to discount the sacrifices made by those who fought to amend the Constitution.
The Jim Crow laws are an entirely different, complicated issue though.
Constitutional amendments might be a complicated issue, but Jim Crow laws most certainly are not because hate is as simple as it is stupid. The only thing complicated about Jim Crow, with regard to voting, was exactly how people of color were going to be kept from the polls.
Harpy wrote:
The way I followed her discussion was that she was commending the progress made by the government in granting the rights to African-Americans and women to vote. She could have tossed out a comment on how oppression still occurred, but that was not the point of the discussion.
The overall point of the discussion was when black men got the vote and when white women got the vote and how that feeds into the look how far we've come mantra...but the implication from what she said was black men got the vote before women. It's a claim that's been repeated by far too many people since Gloria Steinem's column ran in the New York Times just prior to the New Hampshire primaries and it's wrong...historically wrong.
Harpy wrote:
I do not feel that one always has to bring up an injustice when mentioning a positive change. That only serves to discount the sacrifices made by those who fought to amend the Constitution
So, it's not okay to discount the sacrifices of those who fought to amend the Constitution, but it's okay to discount the sacrifices of all those who worked in 100 years following the ratification of the 15th amendment to get voting rights for people of color?
If people don't want to rain on the kumbaya parade, then they should find another way to make the argument.
-----
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I have the education that I recieved in the Georgia school system that did not mention any Civil Rights leaders outside of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have the fact that many schools only have books on those two people in their libraries. I have the fact parents in one of the local school district here became very upset when a publisher also tried to shortchange what happened during the Civil Rights Movement, and had the gaul to say that most African slaves came here by choice and to find work. I have for a fact that many schools still treat Black history as if it is some how different and seperate from American history, and something that maybe should be discussed in February, but no other time of the year.
Oh but gender does come into it. I haven't heard one fellow dem call Obama any names whatsoever, meanwhile I've heard even hardcore progressives (all male) - who consider themselves enlightened no less - call Clinton a bitch, whore, cunt. I mean, you can disagree with her, but to reduce an argument to Rove-ish name calling negates whatever argument you've got, IMO.
Obama has had to deal with people using slurs about him, and making the race about his race and not his issues; including his opponents, their spouses, and the media. Websites have had to shut down comments sections because people have felt the need to sling racial slurs. His Blackness has been questioned, with reporters wondering if he is too Black or not Black enough. He has had his campaign marginalized by being labled "the Black candidate." He's had peopld use religious bigotry by lying about his religion, and even some reporters on Fox saying that he went to a school were he learned to be a terrorist. He's had to recieve Secret Service Protection, that has been increased several times, because of threats.
Now that we have established that both have held to deal with idiots slinging slurs and other disparaging remarks at them, can we discuss what that has to do with the race. The behaviour of idiots has nothing to do with the issues or how well a either of these people will lead. The behavior of idiots, especially since they don't have anything to do with the campaigns, isn't a greenlight to drag race into the discussion, or misstate the history of this country.
This is so offensive that people actually thought it was an urban legend. I received a copy of the original piece and it's sadly, yet laughably (now), real. I'd love to hear Kate's comments on the list.
1943 Guide to Hiring Women
The following is an excerpt from the July 1943 issue of Transportation Magazine. This was written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II.
"Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees: There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage.
Here are eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:
1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.
2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.
3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.
4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.
5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.
7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.
9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.
10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.
11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy."
Love the enthusiasm, Kate! As for the discussion above about race and gender, can't we all agree that the plight of women and racial minorities is still significant. Can't we all agree that oppression is oppression. I am a multiracial gay female and who is to say which part of me people discrimate against more.
Democracy?
You keep talking about democracy, but are you sure that means what you think it does? I think the word you're looking for is 'plutocracy'.
I don't believe for a second that it really matters whom you pick. Perhaps on a very small scale, but I hope you don't imagine anyone other than big business being in power.
Perhaps I'm just cynical ;-)
haha that was quite an
haha that was quite an analogy
-maggie
Well...upon re-educating myself on civics terms...
Democracy:
I would have to say that the George Bush regime was sure attempting to move the government into a plutocracy. And I have to say Kate, you do a fine job using football as a metaphor to explain the dire situation of the form of government known as Democracy.
I would also have to say, that the Republican party was bamboozled into thinking that George and his ilk were representing them. Because, in a democracy there are more than one party involved and a push/pull that pretty much keeps things moving in the correct direction as suggested by our constitution. A plutocracy is NOT about two or more parties representing the ideas of the people and tussling it out to see which ideas we like more. A plutocracy is when the rich get richer without regard to the people (including the majority of the Republican party who are actually not rich).
But just so you know, I'm a Democrat...born and raise. And tonight I'm off to caucus in Colorado (this is will be a new experience for me since we used to have primaries). I'll be blogging on the experience on my own site later.
Keen Observer of the Human ConditionIt just looks like democracy
It looks like democracy, because you get to choose. My issue is that there is only a select group of very rich people from whom you get to choose.
From the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama:
You said:
Yeah, now if only they would talk about ideas which actually matter to the people. As soon as both parties agree on something it doesn't matter what the entire populace thinks of it, you're f----'ed as they say here ;-) My point is that they agree on the stuff that matter to the corporations - gay marriage is not an interesting issue for corporations, so thay's free to become an issue the parties can differentiate on.
Chomsky has a nice article about it (though it is somewhat long): http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041217.htm
It's a bit old (2004) so it talks about Bush/Kerry, but I don't think things have changed that much in just four years ;-)
Voting
Great Vlog as always.
Totally agree about everyone voting. I will not be voting as I'm not American and live in Britain, but it so annoys me when people don't vote during general elections in Britain. Especially women who don't vote, because the things that the suffragettes had to go through to get the right to vote is staggering.
If you don't vote you don't have a say
A Reason To Vote
I noticed in recent years that a lot of people can't seem to find a good reason to vote, it appears to be a global thing- nobody believes politicians anymore (probably with good reason) and there's a general feeling that things are going downhill no matter how we vote. So I'll give you my good (I think) reason to vote:
A couple of years ago we had elections here, the first time I was of age to vote. I remember pondering the same thing, what the point was in voting when it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are "worthy". I'm not much for politics, I don't have the time or patience to follow on what the candidates are doing throughout the years so that I could have a well-founded opinion on them all by the time elections come around. And what sort of justice would I be doing any of them if I voted without getting a good grasp of what they stand for?
But here is my answer to myself, and my pitch to you on why you should vote despite all that:
You live in a democracy, a place where it was decided that leaders would be chosen by the majority of people. And by being a citizen you are obligated to abide that law like every other law. If a law doesn't suit you, then you can protest it in a democratic manner.
This sounds like an obvious thing, but it's crucial to remember. Not voting means that you decide that because you don't like the results of the system, you refuse to take part in it. Not voting means that you are expressing your discontent in a non-democratic manner. Once people do that, once people stop acting in a democratic way, then what you are left with is anarchy- lack of law. People doing what they want because they disagree with what is.
Now, I'm not calling anyone an anarchist or anything and this isn't meant as an attack against anyone in particular. This is just a reminder that even though not voting is a passive act, it means the system put some power in your hands, perhaps a very small amount- but power nonetheless, and you choose to drop it on the ground and let whoever comes around take it.
There's two big problems there: One is that if many people do that even small amounts of power can pile up and become a significant force, and the other is that being a cynic (which you probably are if you are having this problem to begin with), do you really trust all those other people out there with that power more than you trust yourself? I wouldn't.
(Damn, that turned out a long reason... Kudos to you if you read this far down... :P)
- Fox
...
Democracy, Plutocracy
Thought-provoking posts by both Laura and TheWeyrd1. Something that's on my mind of late- what protective measures are in place to insure that all elected officials are working on behalf of America, and not just for foreign, or even unconstitutional, interests? I wish I had more faith in our voters. Of course many people have argued that the current administration mostly serves the plutocracy and related foreign interests. I fear that even scarier possibilities may exist down the road. And yes. It could get worse.
Dear Kate,
I appreciate your zeal and ethusiasm for turning out the vote--it's important and, as a someone who wants to see this country move away from the hubris of the Bush years, I'm happy to have you trumpeting the d/Democratic cause.
But, when you stay stuff like this:
I find it hard to support your efforts. Those comments are, at best, misleading...and, at worst, a complete distortion of American history to score political points.
Your argument completely ignores the Jim Crow era following the passage of the 15th Amendment...as if the amendments passage meant that black folks could exercise their rights as freely as women (or, to be more precise, white women) could after the passage of the 19th Amendment. That's not true and you know that's not true...so quit suggesting otherwise.
Thanks,
pecola
-----
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Well said, Pecola. I don't
...
What facts do you have that schools are all of the sudden omitting the Civil Rights Movement from school books? Why in the world would schools remove a significant portion of our nation's history and thereby omitting one of the largest minorities? As someone who went to college studying history/anthropology, I'm positive this statement is not accurate.
_________
The Vulcan mating season of Pom-far is upon us!
Exclusive Connections for Geeks (video)
Jim Crow Laws
The Jim Crow laws are an entirely different, complicated issue though. The way I followed her discussion was that she was commending the progress made by the government in granting the rights to African-Americans and women to vote. She could have tossed out a comment on how oppression still occurred, but that was not the point of the discussion.
While Jim Crow laws were horrible, the fact that they existed in some areas does not discount the strides made by the Federal government in amending the Constitution. I do not feel that one always has to bring up an injustice when mentioning a positive change. That only serves to discount the sacrifices made by those who fought to amend the Constitution.
_________
The Vulcan mating season of Pom-far is upon us!
Exclusive Connections for Geeks (video)
Kumbaya Parade
Constitutional amendments might be a complicated issue, but Jim Crow laws most certainly are not because hate is as simple as it is stupid. The only thing complicated about Jim Crow, with regard to voting, was exactly how people of color were going to be kept from the polls.
The overall point of the discussion was when black men got the vote and when white women got the vote and how that feeds into the look how far we've come mantra...but the implication from what she said was black men got the vote before women. It's a claim that's been repeated by far too many people since Gloria Steinem's column ran in the New York Times just prior to the New Hampshire primaries and it's wrong...historically wrong.
So, it's not okay to discount the sacrifices of those who fought to amend the Constitution, but it's okay to discount the sacrifices of all those who worked in 100 years following the ratification of the 15th amendment to get voting rights for people of color?
If people don't want to rain on the kumbaya parade, then they should find another way to make the argument.
-----
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I have the education that I
Gender
Obama has had to deal with
Obama has had to deal with people using slurs about him, and making the race about his race and not his issues; including his opponents, their spouses, and the media. Websites have had to shut down comments sections because people have felt the need to sling racial slurs. His Blackness has been questioned, with reporters wondering if he is too Black or not Black enough. He has had his campaign marginalized by being labled "the Black candidate." He's had peopld use religious bigotry by lying about his religion, and even some reporters on Fox saying that he went to a school were he learned to be a terrorist. He's had to recieve Secret Service Protection, that has been increased several times, because of threats.
Now that we have established that both have held to deal with idiots slinging slurs and other disparaging remarks at them, can we discuss what that has to do with the race. The behaviour of idiots has nothing to do with the issues or how well a either of these people will lead. The behavior of idiots, especially since they don't have anything to do with the campaigns, isn't a greenlight to drag race into the discussion, or misstate the history of this country.
1943 Guide to Hiring Women
This is so offensive that people actually thought it was an urban legend. I received a copy of the original piece and it's sadly, yet laughably (now), real. I'd love to hear Kate's comments on the list.
1943 Guide to Hiring Women
The following is an excerpt from the July 1943 issue of Transportation Magazine. This was written for male supervisors of women in the work force during World War II.
"Eleven Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employees: There's no longer any question whether transit companies should hire women for jobs formerly held by men. The draft and manpower shortage has settled that point. The important things now are to select the most efficient women available and how to use them to the best advantage.
Here are eleven helpful tips on the subject from Western Properties:
1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they're less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn't be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.
2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It's always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.
3. General experience indicates that "husky" girls - those who are just a little on the heavy side - are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.
4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination - one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.
5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.
6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they'll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.
7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.
8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.
9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can't shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman - it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.
10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl's husband or father may swear vociferously, she'll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.
11. Get enough size variety in operator's uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can't be stressed too much in keeping women happy."
Another great vlog!
Great Vlog!