Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Death, doom, and the end of America

Or, at least that's what the papers are saying.


For me, the freakiest part of the commentary threads on the above article aren't the ones about the candidates. The freakiest ones are the comments about the two parties...specifically the "leading" (aka 'controlling') the party to reign in the vote. It appears that most people forget that the two parties (regretfully, we only have two and it's part of the problem in our system) are made up of individuals representing groups of people (aka constituents). They are mandated to represent their constituents and "vote their conscience". The latter is their weasle out of not doing what their consitutents want, but I digress.

In any case, if these inviduduals were always supposed to vote their party line and platform "oh, bill A is presented by a democrat. I'm a democract. I vote "yes" the whole system would be a joke. There would not need to be Congress or Senate. Really, if a "good leader" is able to control the party absolutely, why bother with the rest of the members. We'd only need a single Republican and a single Democrat because that's the only voice anyway. Who'd be the tie-breaker? Good question, it's not like any President is truly bi-partisan.

Luckily, the system hasn't quite gotten that useless, though it often comes close. If you can't tow the party line, you don't advance. If you don't tow the party line, you don't get the support, campagin dollars, and your bills get blocked in closed door sessions. Government employees have to play the game, too. Don't support the party, you don't get re-appointed as state Soil and Water Conservation Officer even if you're qualified. Don't support the party, you're going to get a a competitor in the Attorney Genral's Office the next time there's an appointment open.

Sorry, I digressed again.  Back to the commentary... it disturbed me greatly that regular people commenting on the bailout bill actually make remarks that imply they belive that the party should heel and control its memebers and that a good leader controls the party absolutely. Thus the great amount of ranting about which party is at fault for not getting this crap-tasitc bailout bill passed. That individual Senators and Representatives controlled their own votes - purportedly voting their constiuents' position - only appeared in a handful of comments.

I need to find a comfy spot inside this hand-baset; it's going to be a rough road to hell.


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 30th, 2008 05:20 pm (UTC)
after seeing a few posts about government, Have you seen the movie, The Dark Night? An upfront tone just shows are messed up a democratic system really is.

For the most part I'd say the Majority doesn't know which end is up. Like having to many chefs in the kitchen, the results are less than desired.

I know one thing for sure, I do think people can take better care of themselves vs. the government taking care of them. Don't you know how to better spend your money than having someone else spend it for you?

one more thought. Government is like casino. You take your chance, the house always wins. the majority always loses.

rant over;;
Oct. 1st, 2008 01:49 pm (UTC)
Re: politrix
What you say is often true however one thing that people seem to forget who chant the "people know how to better spend their money than the government does" mantra is this. There are some things that can be better accomplished by a large institution such as the government than private individuals. The natioinal highway system and law enforcement are a couple of examples of this.

No private entity would take on the cost and responsibility of the highway system. At least not without charging a lot more. We spend a large amount of money on roads but imagine how much more it would be if those managing it were out to make a profit. The Big Dig in boston is rife with examples of what happens when private companies put profit above all else in public works.

And privatizing law enforcement is just a bad idea. The scenario in Robocop in which the privatized police force is discouraged from enforcing the law against their corporate executives seems very plausable. It would lead to a system not unlike the feudal systems of old in which nobles could run roughshod over the rights of common people because the sheriff was appointed by and soley accountable to those nobles.

The point I'm trying to make is that we need some government and not everything that the government does is bad. The right wing media has been blaming government for everything from teen pregnantcy to the price of gas for several decades now. The result has been an administration and congress that has gutted the government to the point that it can't do the things that we actually need it to do. Like inspect and maintain bridges.

Ok, I've said enough for now...
Oct. 1st, 2008 03:53 pm (UTC)
Re: politrix
You hit that one right on the head. I agree with all those statements. Roads, Law Enforcement and some Public Facilities. but all in all there is toooooo much gov't for our own good. Also their should be no toll roads, WTF?

There does seem to be a misappropriation of funds. You have some "feel good" do-gooders spending tax money on stuff like fancy bridges and wellfare, law suits against building projects. Seems like the more money they the worse things get as far them trying to control everything. right down to hurting someone's feelings.

Sorry I can't organize my thoughts and am all over the place. but I'm on the same page with you!
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )