Lobotero’s Info Ink

This old piece of garbage is long overdue for the scrap heap.  It is NO longer need and no longer wanted.  This is a synopsis of a piece written by Pamela Prah:

National Popular Vote was launched in 2006 and is largely founded by its chairman, John R. Koza, a scientist best known for inventing the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries and his work in genetic programming at Stanford University. In the 1980s, he and Fadem, an attorney, were active in promoting adoption of lotteries in the states

Under the current system, candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, or pay attention to the concerns of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind, Fadem said. For example, presidential nominees have long ignored California because the state is considered a solid “blue” state that will award its 55 electoral votes to the Democratic candidate.

As was said everything, everywhere is a popular vote, then why is not the president chosen that way.  It is time for the Electoral College to be put in the museum next to T Rex, it is a dinosaur and is an extinct mode for an election.

I am really weary of the term being used…..just what is an elitist?

Elitist! Elitist? Who Is The Elitist? (A History Lesson)

Have you heard this term used recently? Oh yeah, Clinton and McCain have thrown it around like Mardi Gras beads. But what does it, the term, really mean? That will depend on who you are and where you are. Right now, the use of the term elitist is nothing more than a media buzzword or a political talking point. No where do any of these so-called people of the people bother to explain what they are talking about. I will attempt to give the reader a little background on the term, elitist.

Remember ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy? Back in the early days of Greek political discussions, the Sophists, most notably Thrasymachus termed those who were the strongest in society as elitists—the rulers—who control education and socialization through legislation and enforcement. But, like everyone else, they are self-interested. Hence they make laws and conventions that are in their own interests, not those of their weaker subjects. It is these conventions that largely determine their subject’s conceptions of justice and other virtues. By being trained, through civics class, to follow and obey, subjects are unwittingly adopting an ideology, a code of values and behavior that serves not their own interests but rather those of their rulers.

To put this more simply, The state is nothing more than an organ of a ruling minority. That the majority (meaning you) is permanently incapable of governing themselves because they lack the capacity to govern. The masses are manipulated by the power elite, because they are passive. Why the people are considered passive? Easy one—1) they do not have a clear concept of what they want from the state, 2) the people are incapable of objectively assessing and interpreting facts, 3) the people are irrational in their reasoning process.

A political inequality is a mechanism by which society ensures that the important positions are filled by most qualified people. And those positions are filled by an uninformed public that votes these elitists into position of power, never to see them relinquish it. These people live by a code that says that their needs to be a certain amount of social, economic and political inequality for the society to function properly. These beliefs make truly participatory democracy impossibility. Why? Power should never be diffused to the will of the people.

Now, Clinton and McCain have called Obama an elitist……thinking……an elitist calling an elitist an elitist…how silly! Clinton is an elitist, after 35 years of power and control, she could be nothing else. McCain is the same story. Now for Obama, he cannot be considered an all out elitist but when a leader emerges from the masses, then he will do any and everything to avoid returning to that position. He will most likely, once transformed into an elitist, become transformed into a jealous guardian of his own privilege once he obtains power.

Someone once called this election season as “the silly season” and on that point I agree. I hope that this short history lesson helps you to understand what an elitist is and that everyone involved in politics is just that. They are from the get go or the morph into one after they attain power and influence. The American voter has no real choice when voting…..they vote for elitist A or elitist B…that is one reason that very little changes from one elected president to another.

I just wanted to let my readers know just what is meant by the use of the term elitist….I await your comments…..

Progressive States is committed to a society where all are equal both under the law and in our economic institutions. Fair Elections are one key to that goal where:

• Everyone should have equal Voting Rights and we should implement systems like mail-in voting or same day registration to lower the barriers to participation.
• Elections should be publicly financed through Clean Elections where individual preferences, not economic resources, determine the victor, and where companies are barred from financing elections one day and receiving government contracts the next.
• Ballot Initiative Reforms should promote citizen participation not corporate special pleading in initiatives and referenda.

Beyond election day, we need a society that promotes robust debate and protects individual rights and liberties:

• Every person should be secure that their Civil Liberties, including freedom of speech and a right to a fair trial, will be protected.
• People who suffer harm by either government or private economic actors should have full and effective Access to the Courts to achieve a just resolution
• We should promote a more diverse and robust Democratic Media, including promoting greater access to the new technologies for all citizens, in order to assure that alternative voices have a greater chance to be heard.
• Every person should have a Public Right to Know government and corporate information critical to democratic participation and to their family’s health and safety.

This commitment to democracy should extend to creating greater Economic Democracy where:

• Workers should have a greater voice in their workplaces.
• Communities should have a greater voice in controlling their economic destinies.
• Individuals through their pensions and other investment vehicles should have greater democratic control of corporate decision-making.

All these democratic commitments should extend from city hall to the federal government in a system of Progressive Federalism where the national government creates strong minimum standards to protect individuals, while giving state and local government the flexibility to create innovative solutions locally.

It is time for Americans to demand more voice in their government and their lives.

I have called myself a Progressive, but what does that mean?  Is Obama?  How about that other Clinton?  You want answers, then here is what a Progressive stands for:

Our progressive values of freedom, opportunity, and security mean that:

1. Progressives stand for better wages and benefits for working Americans. Our economy should provide opportunities for all hard-working individuals and families to enjoy life. Therefore, we support legislation to increase the minimum wage.
2. Progressives stand for affordable, high-quality, health care for all. The security of comprehensive health insurance should be a right, not a privilege. Therefore, we support legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs through greater access to manufacturer rebates, bulk purchasing, and re-importation.
3. Progressives stand for building an education system that is the best in the world. Every child should have an equal opportunity to learn. Therefore, we support legislation to invest in our children’s education through smaller class sizes, more after-school initiatives, and better pre-school programs.
4. Progressives stand for a cleaner, safer environment. We must conserve our natural resources both to secure our own health and well-being, and to fulfill our responsibility to future generations. Therefore, we support legislation to lower the level of pollutants in our air and water.
5. Progressives stand for the elimination of discrimination. Discrimination against any American diminishes freedom for us all. Therefore, we support legislation to eliminate the practice of racial profiling.
6. Progressives stand for real security for the most vulnerable Americans. We must protect the security of our nation’s children, elderly, disabled and disadvantaged. Therefore, we support legislation to make healthcare, child care, elder care, and housing programs more accessible, efficient and effective.
7. Progressives stand for the protection of privacy. For Americans to be truly free, government must stay out of our private lives. Therefore, we favor legislation to keep abortion safe and legal, and ensure access to all reproductive health services.
8. Progressives stand for a criminal justice system that focuses on security instead of retribution. Tough sentences alone don’t make us safer. We need to deter crime with more police, programs for at-risk youth, education, and rehabilitation. Therefore, we support legislation to stop the cycle of addiction by requiring rigorous treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent drug crimes.
9. Progressives stand for fiscal responsibility. Instead of providing equal opportunity, government spending and tax policies often deliver special benefits to wealthy special interests. Therefore, we support legislation to eliminate wasteful subsidies and tax breaks that are both unfair and not worth the cost.
10. Progressives stand for an inclusive, open government. Every American must have an equal opportunity to participate in our democracy. But average Americans are increasingly shut out by the influence of big money on politics. Therefore, we support legislation for public financing of elections.

Now do any of the Big 3 candidates sound or act like they are standing on any of these principles?  Do not hurt yourself!  None of them are true Progressives.  It is just a title to them, not a way of governing.

If one considers themselves a progressive then they will have to look elsewhere for someone who will truly represent their core values.

This is something I think the US needs desperately.  Some may call this Anarchy, or Socialism or whatever you want–it does not matter the title; what matters is that we need it now.

Revolutionary Democracy

What is it?  How does it work?  Before I answer these and other questions, I need to let the reader know that as an observer, I write like I think, I have no time to be grammatically correct, so if for some reason it offends the readers sensibilities, I would say……..Okay.

Please, because the word “revolutionary” is used it is not necessarily meaning some form of armed conflict.  If one cannot move past some arbitarily defined word, then move on, we do not need your input.

I am a revolutionary democrat.  That does not mean I am a member of the Democratic party, far from, it means that I see a need for drastic changes in our system of government.  While I might agree with some of the stances of the DP, I should by no means be confused for a lame half-witted liberal. A revolutionary democrat sees the following as necessities:

1–aim for fundamental change. such as a redistribution of power and social equality.

2–insist on the big picture, making connections between concrete issues and causes.

3–emphaasize brotherhood which implies giving up on stands that only fragment such as the damn silly thought of partisanship.

4–the emergence of a mass movement rather than the acting “for” the people.

5–to work outside the box of electoral politics, for the party system is committed to the nation state not the needs of the people.

Revolutionary Democracy sees the multinational corporations, imperialism and a new form of colonialism as the harbingers of a world crisis.  It is time for the people to take control of their lives and their country.  The people must demand and get accountability from their representatives, something they have none of today.  Time for the people to step up to the plate and learn to play ball; to take the decision making out of the hands of millionaires and put into the hands of the people.  A time for participatory democracy, where all lead and all govern.

At the present time in this political epoch, with corruption, scandal and non-caring, the reps you now have are nothing but spokespeople for big business and the wealthy.  They only care about the people every 4 years or so, once they have the vote they move on to their real objective–self-interest.

As long as the people continue on their path of subjugation, they will never have a voice in their destiny, just turn it over to those who prefer to lead and will lead to the path of ruin.

Right now, the people have the ways to take back their country and their government, but they must want to change the world and must want to end the political slavery they are now participating in.

This is a post thatI was going to make on a discussion forum, but it degraded into a piece of sh*t so I decided I would put it in my blog.  

First of all, may I suggest to the Admin that this be moved to the Poli Sci section, I think it is more appropriate there. 

Secondly, this could be a helluva thread and a purely theoretical discussion. 

I have read the posts several times just to be sure that I understand where all are coming from, before I posted a reply.  This here is my take on the whole thing and I hope it added something to the discussion.

So if people come together as a society, it is somehow a crime against humanity, is that about it? 

First of all, democracy as mob rule.  I cannot dispute that.  I will add what Plato had to say about democracy, “democracy is by the stupid, who make unrealizable promises to the ignorant, and it almost always leads to disaster”.  For the most part, I tend to agree with Plato. 

Now on to collectivism and it has a definition thusly, “relations between people based on the community of their vital interests and a corresponding social consciousness expressed in people’s devotion to a common cause, in a lofty sense of responsibility before a collective.” 

But, the thing about individual rights, I can see where the point is going but then no one is an individual in a society.  Yes, I know, but society is basically an agreement between people who give up certain rights to be guaranteed others.  As a theory it is lofty, but as a reality I do not think it is all that.  If individuals work at agreements with other individuals as a form of society, then I could foresee some form of collective egoism taking place.  That is, they would have a tendency to view themselves as not different from other groups but somehow better.  The problem is, IMO, the group would then identify itself with others included and against those that were excluded.  With that would come the inevitability of social conflict.  That would then bring us back to the pack mentality.  Yes, I see the problems with collectivism, but I can also see why its necessary.

You are correct, IMO, that there is no justification for democracy, but humans are pack animals and as such have a need for a societal entity.  Humans are inherently fearful, as such they will always seek the protection of a pack (society).  Individualism is a perception not a reality.  People like to think of themselves as individuals, but in reality they will always be part of a pack.  Fear of the unknown prevents the individual from acting as a solitary being, the pack offers some security. 

  I guess I need to ask, what form of society would be out there without the collective?  (gee this sounds like something the Borg would say)  I can see chaos, not harmony.  But I realize that few will concur with my assessment.

This very subject has haunted my for many many years.  More so recently because of the conflicts against “terrorism”.  At first, after 9/11, patriotism was sold wholesale to the American people, we were told to fly flags, buy diamonds, go on vacation; if we did not thew terrorists would win.  It always struck me as odd that the leadership of the country would be concerned with retail problems at such a crisis time.  But, I guess in retrospect, that we must keep the econmy going at all times; would not want the profit takers to suffer any set back because of a little bombing.  God knows that these people dictate what we are suppose to do and when. 

As a participant in the turmoil of the 60’s and 70’s I was use to the whole patriotism thing.  You know America–Love It ot Leave It, attitudes.  I found them stupid and irritating at best and as a “long haired hippie” and opposed to the Vietnam War, I was constantly being called a wealth of names, none which accurately defined who I was.  As a veteran of that war I felt that my opposition was very partiotic and necessary.. 

Now, let’s take a look a patriotism.  What is patriotism?  To begin with it is a very subjective topic, it means many things to many people.  The cult of patriotism is taught in school through such techniques as pledge alligience, singing of songs, civics and a wide array of indoctrination techniques.  Now I will be sniped at because I use the word indoctrination, so be it, it means to educate.  When an individual is in school it begins with your first Civics class and continues until graduation from high school.  It becomes less prominent once the individual enters college. 

Patriotism is nothing more than a way for the State apparatus to retain control over the people and what they think.  IMO, patriotism is when a person works for the betterment of ALL citizens of the country; one who tries to bring about change for good, not one who blindly follows some slogan that has NO patriotic connection whatsoever.  Blind patriotism is a chain that hampers the individual from making wise decisions based on fact not some figures that are thrown out to confuse and once cnfused will garner support.  I am reminded of Geo. M. Cohen, the showman, when he said “Many a bum show has been saved by the flag”.

Patriotism will ALWAYS be in the eyes of the beholder and no amount of my rantings will change the fact that; if you fly the flag, you must be patriotic.  Somehow, only a flag waver can know what patriotism is and what makes one a patriot.  IMO, it is all bovine fecal matter.

Ok recently a bomb was detonated at a military recruitment station in Times Square, NYC.  And shortly a note was sent to the authorities that said Happy New year, We Did It.  The problem with that is that NO ONE knew who “WE” were.  There was no to determine who “we” are.  Then the report was it was not from a terror group mostly likely an anarchist group.  If you do not have a suspect why are they always anarchists?

First of all, does anyone know what an anarchist is?  A hint has nothing to do with bombs.  Anarchy is a form of socialism that says there is no need for the state, theat the people are capable of governing without the state apparatus.  But no where is there a need for bombs.  The anarchist of the media is just that–made up bullsh*t!

Anarchist have been a dirty word in the press and has been used to describe something the press wants.  back in the 1880’s at a May Day parade in Chicago, Hay Market to be exact, a bomb went off and from there forward bombs and anarchist are the same.  It is stupid–It is ignorant and it is moronic!

Enuff said!  Peace Out!

I have given voting a lot of thought lately and my views have not changed over the years.  I wanted to reassess my stand to see if that maybe something positive had happened and that I might be mistaken. I am Not!

With the general election approaching, ever so slowly, you would not realize it by the tap dancing candidates are doing.  You would swear, if you just woke up that it was 2008 and the first of the primaries are long days away.  Unfortunately, for your sensibilties it is a year away.

For decades we have been told that if you do not vote, then you have nothing to bitch about.  Or that it is your civic duty to vote.  We have been taught from the very first Civics class that it is all important to participate in the system.  Do you agree?  What has your paricipation accomplished?  Do you truly feel that you are part of the system?  Do you feel that you have gotten your money’s worth out of the slugs you have help put into office?

People need to ask themselves these questions, but only if they are willing to take a hard look at their own participation.  If you vote, what do you vote for?  The Party?  Or possibly the person?  How many really give two shakes in hell about the issues?

Alrighty then, with all that said let us take a look at the institution called voting.

Voting is a strong ideological tool.  Having a majority of the adults vote in any given election is giving a legitimacy to the system that supposedly derives its power from those very people.  The problem is that the people are not being represented, they are justifying the ruling elites who reinforce their legitimacy by claiming to be held to the highest standards.  Basically, what most of these slimes are saying is that they through their representation are contributing to the material well being of the people.  And for most Americans that is all they are looking for, is their material well being.  That is one of the major contributors that lead to the War On Terror.

The candidates that the American people are given as their future leaders are all popped from the same mold.  Makes no difference on party affiliation; they are wealthy, self-serving and maniacal.  And these are the people that we have to choose from at election time.

So you want proof?  Look at the present administration; it is arrogant, self-serving and above all unconcerned with the will of the people.  But yet it was returned for a second tour in power.  Why?  It played heavily on the fears of the people, which in turn, proved to be the best emotional issue to secure leadership through the mandate called votes.

The ordeal of voting is an illusion created by those in power, that tghere is actually a struggle for the positions in which the people decide the outcome.  The only thing the American voter decides is which wealthy elitist will lead them.  The entire system is programed so that only the wealthy elite can enter into the system and have the chance of leadership.  It is acceptable because the voter, from childhood, has been lead to believe that is the way it must be.  By the way, politics in the US is a monopoly, that only the wealthy can play.

Remember, voting does not determine policy, it only legitimizes those who actually control the state apparatus.

Voting is an illusion of popular rule, by the people, which is legitimized by popular elections.  In other words, it is a scam, that the American people participate in freely and it is so well entrenched that they assume they have the power.  They do not!  All you need to do is just look at the last 20 yrs of politics–where were they ever in control?

If one spends much time on line, especially if you are interested in politics, one would see that Conservs and liberals seldom agree on much.  As a matter of fact, being a liberal is akin to being mentally ill.  But the problem is that not many really understand the term liberal.

For years I have been analyzing, reporting and debunking the American political system.  Most Americans think that they are either conservative or liberal, a bit simplistic, at best but that is the way they think.  For instance, if youare not a Republican then you are on the Left(?).  I have yet to find one person that thinks that way that can explain it satisfactorily.  To think that a Democrat is somehow a Leftist, is beyond humor and flies straight into ignorance.

First, if a person is to be labelled a Liberal–what type of liberal are they?  Classical or Modern?  Ask that question and then observe the face of the person being questioned–”a deer caught in the headlights” comes to mind.  Confusion is a good description, but really not that accurate.

Let us take a look at the types of Liberals there are:

Classic Liberal–the so called father of liberalism–John Locke pretty much defines it as thus:

Individual is more important than the state and becomes a citizen of the state only through consent.

The individual is rational and capable of making his/her own decisions.

Progress is posible in political affairs, so change should not be feared.

State power should be limited.

Economic inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

Economic freedom is more important than economic equality.

Next is what we shall call a Modern Liberal–

Government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes necessary to prevent individuals from denying freedom to others.

Liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms:  as the liberty to seek out ways to develope the human potential and contgribute in a meaningful way to society.

Economic inequalities is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their chances of being free.

These are a bit simplistic as I have said and could be expanded on which in turn would make the whole thing so confusing that no amount of trying could bring about an understanding.

I sincerely hope that this has assisted the reader in some way, to help identify the differences in liberals and has help in the identification of what a liberal really believes.  They are not all Leftists, as smoe would have you believe.