Smelling The Coffee: 2010

Yet this is the very system implemented in workers unions. It seems to work well for them, having the workers in control of their wages and benefits.So why can't it work for our government?- Oni

None that anyone gives a shit about. - Oni

Well the IBEW, which the 'I' stands for international, has close to a million members covering the US, Canada and South America (Panama). There are issues covered by all the workers, as well as issues that are decided on locally. It covers both basis, and that's just the electrical union, which is the smallest union, along with the plumbers union.The Teamsters have 1,402,878 members, and like the electrical union, it is also international and there are issues voted on by all memebers and then local issues.So it is not something that can't be done on a large scale. Obviously much work would need to be done to oversee the entire process, but the same was done in the conception of this current system. No difference, it just needs good minds behind it. No. At least not yet since, admittedly, I haven't read all the post in this thread. I'm advocating for a citizen run government, as opposed to the current corporate run government that ONLY has its intrests at heart. My points to Briterican were in reference to his distrust of the general public to make conscious, educated and informed decisions about their own lives. I believe this is a bad view to have, and it can be a good system, run by the citizens, if all basis are covered.- Oni

So you're saying that a faith-based system, where uneducated and uninformed people who get to vote and place trust in their elected officials, even though everyone agrees that we are blind to what is actually going on, is a better system?We're allowing the thieves to run the prisons, and we are placing faith in the thieves to have us, the stupid citizens, in mind when making legislation. How is this better?The reason a system run by the public would be better, IMO, is because ALL matters will have the public's interest in mind, before corporate interest.Currently, we are allowed to vote for an elected official, which then does whatever it is they do behind closed doors. We have faith in them, but as anyone can see, this has done us, the general public, no good.- Oni

Correct. And equally so, communities of citizens are also a collection of people with a common purpose (ie. jobs, healthcare, education, housing, safety, etc.).So it is in this sense that I used the union analogy.I believe the citizens can decide better how to spend and allocate the money for each of these necessities. Not so, IMO, if we really broke down what it is that the "society at large" considers it's specific interests.If we simply started with what is done with our tax dollars, as an example, you could (at least I could) see what the most benefitial areas would be to allocate this money. It would NOT be to re-build the government of Afghanistan, that's for sure.That's just an example. But I'm sure you could see how, just with giving citizens control of where their tax dollars are being spent, would make a huge difference in our everyday lives. Absolutely. But surely you and I can agree that - given that the citizens are educated and well informed, not blinded by the mainstream media - a citizen run spending system can be a system worth investing in? Even, like I suggested, in small increments of just allowing the citizens to spend thier tax dollars properly, and then evolve from there.The faith-based system we currently have is failing us because our interests are not considered. If we control the way money is spent, and only control that, then the systems will undoubtedly be working with the interest of the people first. I'm not saying the military should talk to us when making decisions; but they wouldn't be allowed the corruption of frivolous spending that currently is being done.We don't need yes/no votes on every issue - like Legend is suggesting - we just need control of how our tax dollars are spent, and that would place the governments balls in our hands - AND, take control away from lobbyist, special interest groups and corporate mobsters that are fucking us on a daily basis. We still should allow the experts their opinion, and in fact, I think we would do a better job with that. Did GW Bush listen to the experts? No! So how is this government controlled system any better?I'm not trying to take the deciding power from educated people, like scientist, etc., I'm just saying that decisions can consciously be made by the citizens with the same information that the government currently receives - since we would decide what's best for us, not what's best for corporate mobsters.- Oni

Hi Briterican,Thanks for the info on your name. How do you like living in England? As opposed to the US (Texas). When you can, I strongly advise watching the 9-part series Manufacturing Consent that I linked for you. Its not about conspiracies, etc., it's about media control and the control of information to the general public.There is no mainstream media outlet that is not own and operated by big business. And as for taking the time to search for good information, the general public has enough distractions in their daily lives to see to it that they don't have the time to do this. And frankly, if you believe the news is telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (as do most people) there really is no reason to seek any other info. People usually get home, turn on the local news or CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and accept that was is being said is all the info there is. They never consider that these channels have special interest groups and advertisers that they must keep satisied. So they go along accepting what is said on these channels at face value, but this is a serious mistake on their part. But they can't be held responsible, they've been indoctrinated into this system - they've been indoctrinated into accpeting what the media says at face value, AND, those in control see to it that this system runs without a hitch.Again, watch the video and it may open your eyes to some truths you weren't aware of.- Oni

I agree with basically everything you said, Rahvin. I'll just expound on a few of your points, and add a few other factors that I've become aware of. First, if you notice, there is a level of apathy even in the media - by its very nature, the news is showing a degree of attention to the issues, yes, some issues are brought to light. But what's important to remember is that this information, what every it is, say about abortion or gun control, is preselected, preapproved information. It has been through the filter, and once released to the general public, the information sets a tone for where the opinions of the general public will go.So that's one thing: the media releases filtered information that guilds public opinion. At which point, it is easy for hopeful politicians to campaign on the issues (he/she)* knows the public has being made aware of, and support the opinion that he/she knows their target audience already has.* I used he/she as to not offend the gramm(a)r police. The second thing to consider, is why are they doing it in this way? What is gained? Who gains? Somebody has to gain from this, I mean, it's just as easy to tell the whole truth on any given issue as it is to deliberately withhold information, and tell half-truths - or, omit certain topics all together.So why?Well this can get complicated, as there are many reasons why; some dead on in there explanation, some conspiratorial, and some that are just logical, self evident and easy to see.I recommend that you too watch Manufacturing Consent. It's very informative, not at all conspiratorial, or crazy communist crap, and worth the time to watch, IMO. The link is video 1 of 9. So you may need to set out an hour or so for it.[ABE] Here's a better link to the actual movie, Rahvin Manufacturing Consent. I agree that this is the goal of the news stations themselves. I have no doubt that FoxNews' main priority is to boost ratings with wild stories and crazy folk like Beck and Coulter, for the purpose of gaining viewers, and in turn generating large sums of advertising dollars.But, it goes deeper when you take into consideration the interests of the owners of the stations, their affiliates and their goal. It too is $ but they also need control. To get this (control) they must do the bidding of those who control - and that's the other global industries. They dictate the parameters that the news media will work under (for example, and again this is just evident, Fox News will lean more toward the right and CNN to the left). This wasn't something unplanned. They didn't take it to a vote and noticed that everyone working at Fox happened to be right leaning and everyone at CNN happened to be left leaning, this was guilded in this particular direction by those who own these stations.Big Tobacco, the NRA, Big Pharm, etc., know where to advertise. And remember, some of these industries lean both ways, so they control both sides like puppeteers.So there is a bigger agenda than just getting ratings. It is all done with a goal in mind. And politicians use this to their advantage. They affiliate themselves to these industries since they have the real power. It's a very corrupt system, and sadly, it's this very system that keeps the general public dumbed down, apathetic, uneducated and uninformed.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hey Dronester, It's either this or internet porn. But thanks dude, we both try to bring a different perspective to these debates, which I think is more factual than what the public is exposed to. Lets also not forget Clear Channel, "the largest owner of full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations and twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and is also the largest pure-play radio station owner and operator."Here's a tid-bit about them and their past:

quote:

---

Tom Hicks and Vernon Jordan were formerly members of Clear Channel's board of directors. Jordan was a close friend and advisor to President Bill Clinton and was accused of lying to investigators during the investigations into perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Clinton. Hicks, Clear Channel's former vice-chairman, is a past donor to George W. Bush's political campaigns and a close associate of the Bush family.

---

And who sits as the head of the Board of Directors? Lowry Mays: Mays is a close friend of and major fundraiser for both former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He was named to the Texas Technology Council when the younger Bush was the governor of Texas.Quoted saying: in an interview with Fortune Magazine, he remarked, "We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers products." sourceAlso, Mark Mays (son of Lowry Mays, chief executive officer, president and chief operating officer)
and
Randall Mays (son of Lowry Mays, executive vice president and chief financial officer)So I'll ask the same question you asked:Can anyone not see the obvious bias Clear Channel Broadcast would have concerning war?Can anyone not see the imminent danger of having our media so closely affiliated with the Defense Industry and Presidential families?- Oni

No you can't.You can vote for some other candidate, and that's it. If the majority votes like you then the elected official will be out of a job, but if they don't (remember Bush 04?) the elected official remains, to make a bigger mess. There is marginal accountability at the moment.When I see Bush on trail for war-crimes, along with Cheney, then I'll agree that there is real accountability. As long as he sits in his ranch, having order the mass murder of innocent people in both Iraq and Afghan, it remains in the hands of the elite to decide who is accountable - not you the citizen - and especially not with something as trivial as voting.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.