_________________

Honestly I don't see a point in voting, because the people who end up in the primaries are really just two faces of the same coin. The idea that two political parties can represent the opinions, values, and politics of millions of people is absurd. Not to mention most presidents are really just corporate lackeys in any case. Also, many of the issues people judge presidents by are superficial. Issues like gay marriage, abortion, marriage, stem cell research; these are merely sensational issues, they should have been resolves long ago, and many countries today have resolved these. More important issues that affect not just this countries' citizens, but many other countries as well, are always put on the back burner. Like your other post, they are "self-censored." A big reason for this, I believe, is how news media is now a corporate entity; one who's purpose is to create more money for themselves, not to actually report on real news. Real reporting takes time... resources, money, effort. This would not be "cost effective." Due to this, we are suffering as a nation, as a world. Not to mention that most of the American population just does not give a damn. Apathy is the new nation's national past-time.... it probably always was.

I find it depressing when I hear people talk of the presidential elections... many of them do not understand anything. They are content merely to vote according to someone's political affiliation, sex, race, religion, etc.

It's a popularity contest, is all.


Here's a funny article about presidential elections in general:

http://buffalobeast.com/116/Battle%20of ... 0Stars.htm

_________________
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov

Insightful post, Daedalus. My actions agree with you in that I have not bothered to vote for over a decade in municipal, provincial or federal elections, here in Canada. It's not that I have no faith in the concept of representational government. I just have no faith in government that has become so corrupted by money and power that it can no longer function in a morally rational manner.

Your allusions to corporate influence are astute. Media concentration and ownership are the focus of an upcoming post which I am working on and their influence on politics is unquestioned. The media helps to create an illusion of choice among electoral candidates. The issues that divide the candidates are never the important issues required for any real change to occur. The issues the media focuses on are always the emotional, hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage. When was the last time you saw a candidate campaigning for free speech? Or campaigning against corporate monopolization of the media? Or campaigning against corporate monopolization of the energy supply? It won't happen.

What really needs to be done, barring revolution, is for people to re-evaluate the role of government and the viability of capitalism, as a whole. Some may lay the blame for these ills of governance at the feet of human nature, but that is a purely fatalist point of view, and an erroneous point of view, as well. Experience shows us that most people, while ignorant, are good people. It is the few people (comparatively) lacking any moral responsibility who are exploiting the rest of us. The fault does not lie with human nature - we've made it this far. The fault lies with the system in which we are operating and by system I mean the set of principles that are collectively agreed to as our reality. Capitalism not only relies upon selfishness, it requires it. Democracy and human rights rely upon social responsibility, in stark contrast to capitalism.

Can someone own too much? Do people have the right to own that much? Why should they? In the name of progress? Extrapolation of the the last few decades mergers and acquisitions by corporate giants shows that they are swallowing up not just the mass media but all goods and services, bar none, and will logically conclude with one GIANT company owning everything. The best we could hope for then is an illusion of choice between products/services. Already corporations are well versed at creating their own competition (or buying it) and working both sides of the fence, simultaneously. As with our politicians, what we'll really be getting is slight variations on a similar theme.

_________________

Morality proves weak motivation for most individuals. You refer to the 'quickening pace' of progress in communication, efficiency, and (destructive) technology http://forum.knot4prophet.com/viewtopic.php?p=206&highlight=#206, yet you fail to give capitalism its share of credit in these accomplishments.

While capitalism depends to some degree upon selfishness, this seems an oversimplification. Capitalism relies upon individuals to act in their own best interest. This interest is not inherently greed. In a capitalist society, the rich make up a small percentage of the population. "Small" businesses far outnumber the large corporations. These small businesses arise from the entrepreneurial ideas of individuals. Most business owners earn merely enough to support a reasonable standard of living for their family.

These businesses are often responsible for innovation. Apple/Macintosh corporation started out as two geeks who were fascinated with computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple Their hobby led to the development of computers that individuals could afford. The impact of affordable computers is obvious, particularly if you contrast a society where there are few personal computers with a society where home computing is the norm. The disparity quickly translates into differential learning and productivity; which, in turn, translates into improved standard of living for the technical society.

While the improved standard of living could be dismissed as the fulfillment of 'selfishness,' return to evaluating the society with fewer computing resources. This society's members will most likely be barely subsisting. It is likely that the members suffer from poor nutrition, work long hours, and receive inferior medical care. The members of the more technologically advanced society may have extravagances that are unnecessary for sustaining life, but the alternative is not a fate many would choose.

Companies do sometimes grow so large and powerful that their operations become detrimental to the environment, to individuals, to competition, and even to freedom. Can you point to another system that done better for society? Perhaps even a system that has fostered more innovation?

Various forces work counter to the ideals of democracy and capitalism & give rise to undesirable outcomes. Humans have yet to find a solution. This lends merit to your hypothesis of quickening societal suicide.

This year's election can best be summed up as follows.

Democrats: Your choice of a Bitch who is a lawyer and is married to another Lawyer or a Lawyer who is a married to a Bitch that is also a lawyer.

Republicans: A veteran of the US Navy who was held as a POW with a long track record of pro-military legislation whose wife has big tits and owns a beer distributorship.

Not seeing the cause for deliberation here.