Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

[kdt26417]

Re (from Spork):

"I think that the consciencious and altruistic among them are, yes, relatively few."

Right, that's how I see it.

And even the consciencious few have to resort to some underhanded tactics, due to how tangled the upper echelons of power are. Does that make sense?

I think that the (2012) film "Lincoln" does a good job of depicting life in high political circles (and could be applied the church/business politics as well). Few would say that Abraham Lincoln was a bad man or a bad President, quite the opposite. Yet in the film, we see that he has to "cheat a little" in order to get the Thirteenth Amendment (that abolished slavery) passed by the House of Representatives.

So I always think of Presidential elections as "choosing the least of the available evils." At best.

 

[Spork]

Re (from Spork):


Right, that's how I see it.

And even the consciencious few have to resort to some underhanded tactics, due to how tangled the upper echelons of power are. Does that make sense?

I think that the (2012) film "Lincoln" does a good job of depicting life in high political circles (and could be applied the church/business politics as well). Few would say that Abraham Lincoln was a bad man or a bad President, quite the opposite. Yet in the film, we see that he has to "cheat a little" in order to get the Thirteenth Amendment (that abolished slavery) passed by the House of Representatives.

So I always think of Presidential elections as "choosing the least of the available evils." At best.

Well part of the issue (as I perceive it, and possibly colored rather heavily by my own tinfoil-hattisms) is that a corrupt network does what it can to protect itself. So I was not surprised to hear from several people in recent news who talk about hacking elections. I have thought for a long time that if a major candidate with any actual power gets into office, it is the one that "the system" WANTS, not the one that the people necessarily might want. I am in fact suspicious even of Bernie, because of the huge social networking push that heralded his rise in popularity. I've thought that it's either his own campaign or else an unseen cadre of powerful supporters who made the initial batches of "he's so punk rock!" memes that exploded all over Facebook. I believe very much in systemic manipulation of voters and of the electoral system itself.

So it's not perhaps so much a question of people who want to be career politicians being inherently corrupt. It's not even a question of whether the good and honest ones can get very far with their ethics intact, and not be corrupted by the work. Again, just my own opinion, but to me the question is whether the ones already holding the greatest power (and we probably don't even know who exactly they are) will ALLOW a person who is really good for the people, possibly to the detriment of the interests of "big money-power" to even attain really high office or, once they are there, allow them to do the things they may want to do?

We have heard Bernie talk again and again about being an enemy of Wall Street and on the side of the people. He talks a good talk. Is it true, or an act? And just as importantly, were he to be elected, would the entrenched establishment "career politicians" of Congress actually allow him to accomplish anything that didn't serve their own ends?

My mind is ALWAYS full of questions and doubts. Even for a candidate who looks as good to me as Sanders does. But I cannot see myself voting for any of the rest. If he doesn't get the nod, I'll either write him in or write in McAfee just for fun, I think.

 

[kdt26417]

Re:

"I believe very much in systemic manipulation of voters and of the electoral system itself."

I believe in that also.

Re:

"Again, just my own opinion, but to me the question is whether the ones already holding the greatest power (and we probably don't even know who exactly they are) will *allow* a person who is really good for the people, possibly to the detriment of the interests of 'big money-power' to even attain really high office or, once they are there, allow them to do the things they may want to do?"

Well stated.

 

[River]

Has anyone here heard of the Democracy Spring protests / movement? It seems to be getting very little press.

 

[Spork]

Has anyone here heard of the Democracy Spring protests / movement? It seems to be getting very little press.

I've seen a few things on Facebook about it. I guess the DC police have arrested so many people that they're running out of jail space for 'em?

 

[Ravenscroft]

Ding.

OMG, what a mishmash of stereotypes. I hope that people have more common sense than to believe all that.

Ummm... well, it kinda sounds like typical Republican "man of the people" BS. (Not that the Dems or Libs are afraid to trot it out.)

Consider GW Bush. His no-necks deride a faction of Bush critics as "Ivy League" (a common Joe picked on by Elitists)... then they trumpet what a genius Bush is because "he went to Yale & Harvard!!"... then he's a hardscrabble farmer scratchin' dirt in Texas (a common Joe again)... then he's "just like us, but smarter" so we should do whatever he says.

(He is, however, afraid of cows & horses -- look it up -- which is why it was always "President Bush, clearing brush at his ranch." Maybe that's why he seemed facinated by switchgrass.)

I'm surprised that no one's yet suggested THIS: mebbe y'all should differentiate skilled administrators from sinecures, people who get stuck into a cushy situation either as repayment or because they can sway decisions favorable toward whatever Party machine put them in.

There are "lifetime" office holders of both flavors in State houses across the land & in Congress.

The GOP doesn't make this differentiation publicly, of course, but simply tars every office-holder with the same brush, while fully supporting their sinecures. Notice how the Righties have been struggling so fierceley against "the forces of Evil" since at least the early 1980s to force term limits into Congressional seats... yet SOMEHOW never gaining any traction... even when (2003-2007, at minimum) when they controlled the White House AND the House AND the Senate AND the Supreme Court.

Clearly, SOME people are in deep denial that politics is mostly a popularity contest -- in reality, the winner MUST be pretty & clever & charismatic. Anyone who claims that THOSE qualities translate to administrative skill OR honesty OR whatever is a blathering moron & should be slapped until smart.
________________

HOWEVER -- I'm certain that any attempt to force the efficiencies of the business world onto government is at best riddled with error, & probably long-term disastrous.

The vaunted "founding fathers" INTENTIONALLY put in the whole checks & balances thing, right? Maybe that's dropped off the curriculum, but we heard it plenty in +/- 1970. But the teachers kinda skimmed past the WHY, which really is the point: efficiency leads to oligarchy.

Anyone here studied freshwater ecology or systems analysis or social dynamics, anything like that? (Well, it could happen. ) What Jefferson et al built into the system was metaphoric friction, like a simple feedback loop intended to slow the system down & keep it from running amok.

I am not convinced that "an administrator" who shows skill in government will automatically thus show equal ability in business, or vice versa. Yet, we see that failed paralelism all the time.

Like, twenty years ago, I was a camera operator in an industrial graphics firm. A few months in, my boss left to take a better job in a quieter town, & management replaced him with... an assistant manager at a McDonald's, & no I am not making that up. He knew NOTHING of the graphics world, much less the methods or equipment, "but he has three years of management experience!!" Let's just say I was neither the first nor the last to quit in the following months.

Maybe he'd have done fine at an Arby's or Carl's, or even an actual restaurant like Outback. However, management explicitly empowered him to run things "as you see fit," so he was made too arrogant to admit that he had no first clue about creating, maintaining, & archiving blueprints... the PURPOSE of the company. Maybe he learned"on the fly," but I didn't see that happening while people like me were there to clean up his accidents & protect him from accountability.

And anyone who's actually been in the business world is aware that it's a place CRAMMED with more useless (& even potentially dangerous) fads than the DIET BOOKS section of Hasting's.

Has everyone forgotten that GW Bush referred to the Enron executives as "the smartest guys in the room"??

Has everyone forgotten the bank crisis of 2009, which was led by guys making (I can't bring myself to say EARNING) eight-figure incomes all the while -- some of their bosses then had the gall to say, "well, if we paid them less, we couldn't attract the highest quality." Me, I coulda created just as much disaster for a LOT cheaper.

What is "efficient" in one shop isn't automatically a perfect fit for the one next door.
What is "efficient" in one industry might be immediately disastrous in another.
What is "efficient" is not necessarily beneficial to the company.
What is "efficient" is not necessarily profitable.
What is "efficient" might work directly AGAINST longterm survival (let alone simple functionality).

 

[Ravenscroft]

I just don't like nor see the usefulness in painting everyone in a certain category or career with the same broad brush.

I don't begrudge rich folks their money -- I don't understand that resentment, either.

You do see where the latter is an example of "painting everyone in a certain category with the same broad brush," right...?

It worries me to see where anyone could possibly believe that "The Wealthy" are somehow sanctified by mere dint of cash. That borders on mindless worship of Power merely because it's Power.

Since when have "the rich" had a particularly hard time getting by in the United States??? The 1990s? 1980s? 1970s? 1960s? 1950s? 1940s? 1930s? 1920s? 1910s? 1900s? 1890s? 1880s? 1870s? 1860s?

The Fed used to tax the BEJEEZUS out of static wealth, yet this nation somehow remained THE place to be. In which era did a 35%+ tax rate force rich people to renounce citizenship?

Up until quite recently, the uber-wealthy created foundations, & used those to keep their offspring out of trouble. Now, we have... well, Paris Hilton. We have cash rendered dormant, used to artificially inflate the stock market rather than start businesses & create jobs & make stuff & maybe improve the world a little. Because of stupid crap like "eliminating the death tax," that cash is now taken out of circulation for decades, generations even.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Hah.

I think that you all just love railing against anything that smacks of Establishment.

Wow -- I just noticed this.

What an utter load of crap.



At best, an absurd straw man argument, where you make a poor parody of a stance that you fear may have validity, easily knock that parody down, & claim you've thereby defeated your opponent.

To date, the only source I've noted to refer to "the Establishment" as a loathesome term is that bastion of Liberalism, the National Review.

But, let's look at the reality anyway.

• Bernie Sanders was elected to the House in 1990, then the Senate in 2005. Looks kinda like 26 years in elected office, entirely in DC. How, exactly, does this make him NOT "Establishment"?
• meanwhile, late in 1999 Hillary Clinton moved to New York in order to be slotted into Democratic ticket a few months later &, when the favored Rudy Giuliani dropped out due to prostate cancer, easily beat his stand-in. She left elected office at the beginning of 2009 -- ten years.
• as an attorney, Ted Cruz engineered Bush v. Gore in 2000, then was appointed to posts in Justice & the FTC. In 2012, he was elected to the Senate. Since then, he's gone to great lengths to paint himself as an "outsider" & really off-pissed a few parts of the GOP. (How a key Bush insider could magically have always been an anti-insider continues to amaze me, thought not half so much as the voting Wingnuts who believe it.)
• John Kasich served in the House, 1983-2001, then became governor in 2010. So, 18 years in Washington, but maybe it wears off over time.
• Donald Trump is the only "outsider" I can see, having never held political office at all, much less in Washington. And you can see how many people here are lustily singing HIS praises.

 

[River]

Wow -- I just noticed this.

But, let's look at the reality anyway.

• Bernie Sanders was elected to the House in 1990, then the Senate in 2005. Looks kinda like 26 years in elected office, entirely in DC. How, exactly, does this make him NOT "Establishment"?

Recently folks are using the word "establishment" and "anti-establishement" in what I consider to be very strange ways.

To my way of thinking, the "political establishment" in the USA is comprised of those who are willing to perpetuate the money equals power system which is the American way, at present. Those who will challenge that system are anti-establishement. Thus, Bernie is anti-establishement, as he -- unlike Hillary -- is not benefiting from or encouraging the money equals power system.

Those committed to the money equals power system will not agree to my usage of the term "establishment," but this should not be a surprise, should it?

Some very strange, perhaps psychotic, pundits are calling Donald Trump "anti-establishment"! Now that takes the freaking cake, doesn't it?

 

[Ravenscroft]

Yah, that's why I find myself writing off ANYONE who freely uses the terms to attack others' opinions. It seems intended to say, "You're not THINKING about the Reality of the situation, just responding in a knee-jerk manner!"

...completely clueless that they're reflexively repeating a packaged meme without actually THINKING about it.


________________

Back in 1998, Minnesota was gearing up to elect a governor. Choices were poor: the Democrat empty suit (Skippy Humphrey, nice guy & capable AG), the Republican empty suit (former antiwar hippie radical, Democrat to 1996 then suddenly firebreathing Right Wingnut), & a gaggle of sideshows starting with Fancy Ray McCloney.

One afternoon, I happened to have Public Radio on, & they were hosting the requisite debates. The moderator asked a question. Skippy blithely rattled off his party line without actually answering. Then Norm rattled off his party line without actually saying anything. Then a third voice, sounding like a typical out-state farmer, totally floored me --

"I dunno," he said. "I'll talk to my team & give you an answer at the next debate."

I mean, how could someone running for office have the sheer brazen balls to say "I DON'T KNOW"??

I had no idea who he was, but in a flash I knew I'd vote for him. That was Jesse Ventura.

For supporting Ventura (some of my friends were election-night security at their rally site), some people sneered at "wasting your vote on a 'protest' candidate!!"

 

[IndieSolo]

You do see where the latter is an example of "painting everyone in a certain category with the same broad brush," right...?

No, I don't. Are you referring to when I said I don't begrudge rich people their money? I guess I should have finished that sentence with the rest of what I was thinking about it, which is I don't begrudge rich people their money just because they are rich. Prejudice means "pre-judging" someone before you have all the facts. So, judging rich people as bad just because they have a lot of money is what I am talking about. If you don't know how they made their money, don't assume it was all handed to them through corrupt practices.

No, I am not saying there is no such thing as corruption. But there is this this idea that it is more noble to be poor, and to work hard for what you get. So, here we go painting everyone with broad strokes: To work hard and be poor is noble; to have wealth or to be a capitalist is evil. And I know a lot of people who believe that, and yet buy their lottery tickets every week. So, it only applies until they get rich from doing nothing, I guess. And the sad fact is that not all poor people are downtrodden hard workers. A lot of them are lazy shits who will do whatever they can to weasel something out of you if they can get away with it. I grew up poor and surrounded by poor people, so I've seen a lot of that, too. Being an honest hard worker or being a corrupt weasel has nothing to do with how much is in your bank account.

YIt worries me to see where anyone could possibly believe that "The Wealthy" are somehow sanctified by mere dint of cash.

Who said that? I don't hold rich people up as better than anyone else. I just prefer to form my opinions about someone after learning more about them and/or getting to know them. I've known and befriended people who are incredibly wealthy. Some were honest and kind, some were dishonest assholes.

A very wise teacher of mine once said that if you hate people who have more money than you do, you set yourself up to never have money. I don't see any nobility in being poor. So, I don't go that route.

And what is rich? Some people in certain parts of the country might consider me rich, based on my salary and what I pay for rent in NYC, although in reality I am barely meeting my expenses.

Meh, this whole thread is getting rather boring to me now. I only wanted to point out how I thought this rallying against "career politicians," which I've seen in a lot of places, is an odd stance.

 

[Spork]

When I talk about corrupt wealthy (this has nothing to do with politicians) I think of these two men...

2009-2011 I worked in an office in Olympia and for part of that time, the building was owned by a company called Prium. When they defaulted, our utilities were shut off.

These men, for what they did, never served any time and I am fairly certain that they still live the lifestyles of wealthy people, in large homes as the heads of companies, driving Bentleys and putting their kids through private school. Despite the fact that everyone knows that they're crooks...they are just allowed to go right on crooking. There were some lawsuits, a few punative fees and fines, but they were not shut down.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article25859410.html

I also recall reading about a sewer authority in the south that was exposed, basically ran the city bankrupt and raised rates and fees to way more than the citizens could afford, and they had on payroll a guy whose only job was to hobnob with heads of business and various government officials, a sort of PR dude only he actually wasn't, and he was getting millions for attending galas and other useless nonsense, this guy, as the city went bankrupt and the citizens went into collections for bills they couldn't afford to pay.

I worked for a utility company once in their payroll department, and they were having me reconcile manually cut checks in the records, a tedious little piece of bookkeeping that hadn't been kept up to date for months. There was a retired former president of the company who, despite still receiving over six million dollars a year in retirement pay from the company, there were several checks written out to him, but no one had any details at all on the amount or purpose of any of those checks. I was only a temp...and I was only trying to accomplish my task...but everyone I asked nervously told me to ask someone else. There were no answers.

And to take it on down the ladder a bit, in most places I've worked, the people who make the most money actually do the least work, and often know the least about the actual work being done in the organization. I've seen "prestigious" degrees from fancy schools, or a crony network of "I know a guy" get people jobs in positions of authority over others, when they haven't got the first clue about the work actually being done on the floor. I got to hear all about high ranking career military guys getting busted for selling sensitive equipment on the black market for personal profit during deployment, only to hear later that they just got reassigned to another base elsewhere and the whole the swept under the rug.

So part of my generalized skepticism and lack of trust (it's not hate, I assure you...just wariness) of those in positions of wealth, power, and authority, stems from not only seeing instances of corruption, but watching systemic protection of the most corrupt...even if they get caught, they seem to get away with whatever they're doing.

 

[FallenAngelina]

....in most places I've worked, the people who make the most money actually do the least work, and often know the least about the actual work being done in the organization.

I have the exact opposite experience.

 

[Spork]

I have the exact opposite experience.

That's cool. I've actually had some really good leadership in this company, so I do know it isn't always the case. But I've had some terrible management in other companies. Especially those that hired leadership from outside instead of promoting from within.

 

[Ravenscroft]

apples / oranges

The disagreement appears to've morphed from "vicious Pinko anti-entrepreneur lies!!" to "well, that's not true for ALL businesses."

My current job -- we build the heavy-duty urban transit buses that dominate the North America market -- could be a textbook case, literally. Anyone who's read Up The Organization would be dismayed/delighted to tour our Minnesota facilities; we host acceptance inspectors from our customers, & they're amazed at the entrenched dysfunction..

For instance, at headquarters (Canada), our Production VP is constantly being undermined by the engineering department, yet has never called the Engineering VP to task... because it's the same guy, so Production instead regularly berates everyone except for Engineering.

Local management is dominated by sinecures who (per the Peter Principle) rose to their level of incompetence 15, 20, 25 years ago, & in some cases were long ago promoted beyond mere incompetence. In recent years, they've taken to swapping managers & methods between plants, immediately decreeing that this "solved the problem," then going batshit when the situation stayed failed or even got worse.

My area depends on hundreds of highly specialized little components. For years, we've pointed up the clear discrepancies between the inventory database & actual availability. In many cases, nobody in Receiving EVER compares a bill of lading to what's actually received. As well, we've found boxes & even pallet-loads left in weird places, covered in dust. Last year, management "solved" this by installing a half-dozen "security" cameras, as they'd decided the problem was due to theft. Within weeks, they were actively spying on workers, making sure they don't make too many restroom trips, or ask a co-worker to explain a complicated blueprint.

At the opposite end of the spectrum was my time with Prudential. In 1998, I walked in as a clerical temp, & suddenly got hired as a Claims Examiner II simply because I showed ability.

Their Maple Grove campus had almost 1,000 employees at its peak, & was cleaning up thousands of investment-based life insurance policies after a huge SEC suit. The chaos level was amazingly high, but most management I met were excellent. If I had a suggestion of how to improve quality, throughtput, or workflow, I might find myself chatting with a VP!! (& stuff WOULD get done!)

Though we had a full-service cafeteria, we'd often find fresh bagels waiting Saturday morning, or a Cantonese lunch spread in our area, or "have an offsite meeting" that might include burgers, beer, & bowling. We were pretty dedicated, & would actively compete to turn out highest-quailty work -- just as a matter of pride & camaraderie.

As the cleanup finally began to wind down, & staff reduced largely through attrition, our morale steadily increased. In spring 2000, a bunch of us accepted layoff -- between cash, bonuses, stock, & 401(k), I took away almost $8,000. Not bad for starting from "we'd need you to commit for 3 to 6 months."

 

[Spork]

So I've done a little analysis on the Democrats' primaries so far...

In general, Bernie has had more popularity/success in the west, and the north central parts of the nation. Hillary has had more popularity/success in the east coast, the rust belt, and the deep south.

The whole superdelegates thing pisses me right off. I mean, Colorado voted to back Bernie by a fairly significant margin, but our superdelegates are still endorsing Hillary. I honestly think that given the fact that a number of these people are our "elected representatives" the fact that they are choosing NOT to represent us is telling. I hope that voters remember it when it comes time for any of them to be reelected, but I doubt if people will.

Anyhow. I have some predictions I want to make just for funsies...

5/3/16 Indiana - Clinton
5/10/16 West Virginia - Clinton
5/17/16 Kentucky - Clinton
5/17/16 Oregon - Sanders
6/7/16 North Dakota - Sanders
6/7/16 South Dakota - Sanders
6/7/16 New Jersey - Clinton
6/7/16 California - Sanders
6/7/16 Montana - Sanders
6/7/16 New Mexico - Clinton (I predict that it will be a similar shit show to what happened in Arizona down there.)
6/14/16 Washington D.C. - Clinton

Unless the superdelegates flip on her and take up with Bernie, I think that Clinton is going to win. Even though I expect him to win in California, I don't think it will be by a tremendous margin, and she'll still be getting some of those delegates.

Any thoughts, anyone?

 

[kdt26417]

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Oh, THIS ought to be fun: there's rumours afoot that GOP dirty-tricks specialists are working (influence-peddling & cash) to sway Democrat superdelegates to Sanders. Stay tuned....
________________

Seems like, used to be, that a POTUS candidate had to be both pro-labor & pro-business.

Despite their Socialist roots, USA unions by mid-century were more centrist, even before Tailgunner Joe & HUAC. Like them, Sanders' beliefs have with time taken on a mellow tint -- heck, I'd compare him to FDR & Barry Goldwater.

Sanders is no Commie fool/tool: he's quite aware of how thoroughly Capitalism & Democracy are intertwined. However, though the POTUS would not have direct power to make changes, he HAS threatened the banksters directly. And I'm not the only one to remain unconvinced that Clinton will make any lasting changes; she's NOT done enough to overcome the taint of her husband's signing off on the (ugh!) "financial modernization bill" that buried (rather than revivified) Glass-Steagall & led DIRECTLY to the 2007 financial meltdown.

Though Citizens United v. FEC allowed unlimited bribery -- oops, I mean campaign spending -- by nonprofits AND corporations AND unions alike, the fact is that labor is outgunned AND outnumbered when it comes to cash, & Sam Walton's children could EACH outspend the Teamsters.

So, I figure Sanders has the edge in union support, but Clinton has the support of business in general & the banksters in particular -- she'll play the game, make nicey-nice noises in public while compromising readily, where Sanders looks a bit stiffnecked.

Mike Malloy called Bill Clinton "the best Republican president we've ever had," & meant it as praise. It's an accurate assessment: Clinton did indeed usher in the dot-com/dot-bomb prosperity bubble that wasted billions upon billions of dollars BUT led to a huge wave of online commerce. He also drastically "reformed" a few social-welfare programs, gutting AFDC & JOBS -- after all, he'd campaigned promising to "end welfare as we have come to know it" -- which (for example) in South Minneapolis alone resulted in dozens of daycares closing when young single women could no longer afford to go to college/vo-tech AND hold down a part-time job, & many gave up, staying home & collecting a tax-funded check. I'm not the only one at that time to've called him "Reagan II."

Though in my heart Sanders deserves the job -- after all, he's not spent the past decade "working the circuit" & ginning up support, & has become a serious challenger in less than a year -- I would MUCH rather have Clinton as POTUS than ANY Right Wingnut (with the possible exception of Kasich).

 

[Spork]

Oh, THIS ought to be fun: there's rumours afoot that GOP dirty-tricks specialists are working (influence-peddling & cash) to sway Democrat superdelegates to Sanders. Stay tuned....
________________

...

And see, I'd have thought it would be the opposite, that the GOP would be scheming to get Hillary in there. Because everything I've read suggests that Bernie's got an actual chance of defeating Trump, but Hillary doesn't. And I know for certain a great many voters who WOULD vote for Bernie, but WOULD NOT vote for Hillary. To be really honest, the concept of voting Hillary leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, but I think I'd do it as an act of sickened desperation to try and keep Trump out. I just don't feel like we as a nation could show our faces in the global neighborhood, having elected that guy as our most visible rep to interact on our behalf with other world leaders. Feels like showing up to the family reunion after getting married to Joe Dirt or something. The stuff of a comedy film of dubious merit rather than actual reality.

Again, part of me just keeps waiting for a punchline here...

 

[kdt26417]

I have this morbid curiosity about what Trump as President would be like. Man, imagine all the crazy hijinks that guy would pull. But then I remember it would affect me.