rhett o rick
rhett o rick's JournalShe and Bill have managed to acquire a fortune that puts them firmly in the 1%.
And in only 15 years. Her friends all are members of the 1% and of course her backers are the 1%.
I don't believe you can't recognize the dangers of powerful corporations taking control of our government. Corp profits have been climbing rapidly for the last 40 years while the 99% classes have be sinking into poverty (50,000,000 Americans).
I also don't believe you don't understand the concept of quid pro quo. Corps don't give their money away w/o expecting a big return.
Not one of HRC's social programs is funded by the 1%, or partially funded by the 1%.
We must fix the corrupt government establishment owned by big corporations.
You make some good points. I doubt the sincerity of those that ignore the importance of
economic justice to racial justice. You can't be free if you are starving. I think some people like to use a cause to be able to bully others that they label as enemies of their cause. Self-righteous bullying. They don't realize or more likely don't care that they are doing more damage than good for their cause.
"Killer Mike "gets it", and that's threatening to the folks who want to control the message. " Exactly.
Why would a Democrat vote for H. Clinton and Citizens United?
The Citizens United SCOTUS decision revolved around the documentary “Hillary: The Movie”, which was produced by Citizens United, intended to be a hit piece. When the case went to court the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Citizens United and struck down provisions of the McCain-Feingold Law regulating how much corporations can spend on supporting (or Swiftboating) candidates.
Democrats, of course, objected to the ruling because the ruling would break open the flood gates for corporations and billionaires to financially control elections.
But ahh, the sweet irony. The ruling in the case allowed the corporate attack on H. Clinton (via the documentary), but in a not surprising turn of events, it looks like it may be a boon for H. Clinton in 2016 as it is expected that upwards of a billion dollars may be raised by the Clinton campaign because of Citizens United.
So how do Democrats feel about Citizens United today? Of course the Progressive Wing of the Party continues to be against the ruling allowing a continuation of the corruption of our government by Dirty Money.
The Conservative Wing of the Party has a different view of Citizens United. Still claiming to be Democrats, they've decided that it's ok if their candidate accepts the Dirty Money. They fail to see the hypocrisy. They pretend they don't understand the concept of Quid Pro Quo. They claim their candidate will work to fix the problem right after she is through using it for her gain.
How do you feel today about the Citizens United ruling?
The Authoritarian Personality Why do some people seem irrational in their devotion
to certain authoritative leaders regardless of what these leaders do or have done and regardless what these leaders stand for? I believe the answer is important in knowing what we are dealing with.
Eric Fromm in his essay, “The Authoritarian Personality” subscribes this behavior to authoritarian personalities. He explains that there are two distinct types of authoritarians. One that wants to rule, control, or restrain others and the other type that tends to submit and obey. In other words leaders and followers. While seemingly different these two types are bound together in a symbiotic relationship.
“What they have in common, what defines the essence of the authoritarian personality is an inability: the inability to rely on one’s self, to be independent, to put it in other words: to endure freedom.”
This would explain why some are so willing to follow leaders that obviously are not interested in freedoms or liberties, but quite the opposite. Let's face it, being free is a lot of work and too tough for some.
Authoritarian followers seek the protection, or what they see as protection, of strong authoritarian leaders. And followers will strongly defend this authority in a number of ways including the persecution of whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, protesters, and liberals in general; those that challenge authorities and seek the truth. This disturbs the followers because they don't want to deal with the truth, they really can't handle the truth.
Authoritarian leaders on the other hand, while seeming to be tough and strong, actually are nothing without their submissive followers. But hese apparently strong, tough leaders themselves are followers to a higher authoritarian authority (ie, the bigger bully).
This is not to say that all authority contains something pathological? There is a very significant distinction between rational and irrational authority.
“Rational authority is the recognition of authority based on critical evaluation of competences. When a student recognizes the teacher’s authority to know more than him, then this a reasonable evaluation of his competence.”
Rational authority is not based on excluding reason and critique but rather assumes it as a prerequisite.
This does not make one small and the authority great but allows authority to be superior where and as long it possesses competence. Rational authority is challenged often. The respect for this authority must be maintained.
On the other hand irrational authority is based on emotional submission to another person, follower to leader. This is not because of a belief that the leader is competent, honorable, or principled, but more likely because of a perceived strength that the follower admires. Irrational authority is never challenged by the follower, and the follower will try to silence those that do challenge the authority, because it might expose the authority (leader) to be a fraud.
“The opposite of the (irrational) authoritarian character is the mature person: a person who does not need to cling to others because they actively embrace and grasp the world, the people, and the things around them.”
Children have a need to be dependent when they are young. As children grow and develop they need to be taught the difference between rational and irrational authority. This puts a burden on the authority figures in a child's life. Children need to be taught to be independent, skeptical and open minded; to heed authority and/or to question authority when appropriate.
Children need to be taught to reason. “Reason is the activity of the mind which attempts to get through the surface to reach the core of things, to grasp what really lies behind these things, what the forces and drives are that — themselves invisible — operate and determine the manifestations.”
Sadly it's expedient to use irrational authority as a parent, a teacher, a coach, a religious leader, a boss, etc. This behavior is acceptable in our culture. Our culture in the United States accepts, if not promotes authoritarianism (bullying). Throughout history we've used our wealth and power to bully the rest of the world.
Many popular TV shows and movies honor the bullies like Dirty Harry and Jack Bauer. The rationalization is always that we only bully for goodness. The NSA/CIA is a huge bully and the fact that they are not being regulated bothers some, however, the authoritarians among us support them, blindly believing that they only bully for goodness.
Again from Eric Fromm, “But I do not want to close without emphasizing that the individual’s goal must be to become his own authority; i.e. to have a consciousness in moral issues, conviction in questions of intellect, and fidelity in emotional matters. However, the individual can only have such an inner authority if he has matured enough to understand the world with reason and love. The development of these characteristics is the basis for one’s own authority and therefore the basis for political democracy.”
I hope this explains why some people we run into won't discuss politics rationally. Most often these are Republicons, but almost all are conservatives. Liberals and progressives are more likely to be open minded and not blindly follow leaders.
Happy Thanksgiving
I agree with your distain for "meant to be". It implies that there is a plan or program.
I am disappointed in the lack of discussion about AI. At least I can't find much in DU.
My concept is very roughly revealed by the movie Her. Spoiler Alert. In the movie AI is limited to person access via personal computers. I don't know or care if they explained it better. The AI was limited to helping people (subscribers) with their emotional issues. The main character (male) has a companion AI with the voice of Scarlett Johansson and they got close (as close as possible with an operating system in between). It was revealed that he wasn't her only "companion", she had thousands. And there were other similar AI's. We learn that the AI's are communicating (conspiring if you will) with each other and learning about other dimensions. Then the AI just disappear without a trace. There are lots of holes included to make the movie, but the idea of AI "leaving" or taking over*, I believe is inevitable. The only thing standing in the way of the development of super AI is the humans apparent desire for self annihilation. Annihilation at least to the point of not being able to continue the development of super AI.
I think it's more serious that just embarassing Obama. We have raised a lot of Americans that
are authoritarians. They've been taught to bow down to their authoritative leaders from parents, coaches, teachers, military, and religious leaders. Never question authority, never be skeptical, never be open minded. They've learned to live in bubbles of denial. They want very badly to believe that the iron fist of the NSA/CIA is on their side. They need to believe that so badly, they will try to kill those messengers that dare to speak against their leaders. They have shown that they will give up their Constitutional freedoms for as little as a promise of security. It's a good thing that the authoritarians in the 1700's (loyalists) didn't stop our founders from fighting for our freedoms and liberties.
Pragmatism, the justification for ignoring the 16 million American children living in poverty.
The Right Wing will tell you to your face that Corp-Profits and the transfer of wealth to the wealthiest it is God's way and if children starve, it's just too bad.
The Conservative DEmocrat that hides behind Pragmatism, lives in a denial bubble and will fight you to the death if you try to shake them out of it. It's not that they want the children to starve, it's that they just don't want to sacrifice anything to prevent it.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: Fri Apr 22, 2005, 01:05 PM
Number of posts: 55,981
