Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Wounded Bear

Wounded Bear's Journal
Wounded Bear's Journal
June 21, 2014

America has never been a true democracy...

Just reading the Constitution will tell one that. We are a Republic, with some democratic ideas thrown in. A study of US History will reveal how the ebb and flow of politics has led to several sudden increases of "democratic ideals" alternating with periods of increasing plutocracy.

The Constitution itself has major protections for minority interests, and by that I don't mean races or cultural groups so much as monied interests and the political power of the states. The Founders were comprised of two main groups. There was the landed gentry of the South and the businessmen of the North, two groups so at odds on economics and social issues that the Civil War which occurred some 80 years later was nearly inevitable. The Southern 'gentlemen' preferred a return to a somewhat idealized, bucolic version of English lordship and landed privilege, based on slave labor. The Northern businessmen preferred the rough and tumble of commerce, with many of them having been engaged in what the British government considered smuggling. With few exceptions, the Founding Fathers were not enamored with democracy at all, and constructed a govenment that they thought would protect their interests.

The problem I have always had with the Tea Partiers in general is that by their actions, they have supported and furthered the very group that the original protesters fought against, that being the corporate/government proto-fascism that was British mercantilist policy. Note that the original Tea Party was performed against the East India Tea Company, which had a near stranglehold on Parliament of its day and controlled politics in Britain in ways that the Nazis of the mid 20th Century would be proud of. If any of them really knew their history, they would be ashamed. But of course shame is not really an emotion they waste a lot of time on. Unfortunately, their leaders know their history and are quite willing to exploit their ignorance to their own advantage.

June 21, 2014

Hatred of the Jews has a long standing history in Europe...

much of it stemming from the Middle Ages and not yet totally resolved. We thought that maybe the horrors of WWII would "cure" it, but apparently not. As was pointed out above, during times of economic stress people dredge up old hatreds as they look for someone to blame. Invariably, of course, they pick the wrong people to blame and hate.

Here in the US, we don't have as much blatant anti-semitism, since other groups are more obvious and easy to target. The Jews are at least sort of white and blend in. Our racists won't bother much with them until they get over their hatred of people with a skin color that makes them easier to spot.

People are tribal by nature, and it takes an effort to get over the fear of the "other" in whatever form that may take. Conservatives tend to be less interested in making that effort than liberals IMHO.

June 5, 2014

Interesting question re: Bergdahl exchange...

So, I was listening to Stephaine Miller this morning and a RWer got through on the phone. This guy insisted that the 5 Taliban folks who were traded in the exchange should not have been, and his logic seemed to be that since this wasn't a "war" because Congress didn't declare war, that they were not "prisoners of war" and weren't eligible for exchange because of that.

So, my question is: If those guys weren't POWs because we 'weren't at war,' doesn't that mean that Bergdahl also wasn't a POW?

I know they're trying to paint him as a traitor and/or deserter now, but hey, they seem to try to bend the argument in any way they want, to justify their hypocrisy.

June 5, 2014

Interesting thought experiment...

I think, though, that if this kind of separatism was allowed, the country would have splintered long ago. There is something to be said about forcing people to live with others that differ from them in social and political ways.

Here in the real state of Washington, we have our own "separatist" movement that isn't very strong, TBH. Western Washington is where the bulk of the population is concentrated, aligning with three of the largest cities, Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett, along with the capitol, Olympia. Eastern Washington, and large parts of South West Washington are largely "red" areas that vote Republican and follow the 'conservative values' crowd. There are always murmurs about the balance of power and partition, but nothing really meaningful has come of it. The same could be said of the California situation, I think, though the fact that they actually got a motion on the ballot in a few counties says that it could be bubbling into something.

The fact remains that forming a new state is almost impossible per the US Constitution, as it requires the agreement of the State and the Congress. The one time a state was partitioned, the state government at the time was a bit 'indisposed' as it were, being in active secessionist rebellion. IIRC there was a lawsuit after the fact, but it failed.

June 2, 2014

On burning fossil fuels...

If you really think about it, 'modern' use of fossil fuels is really just the same old thing people have been doing for thousands of years, burning something to release the chemical energy it contains, while releasing all manner of toxic fumes and pollutants. From that perspective, we haven't improved much from when the first cave men ran over and grabbed the burning shards of a tree struck by lightning.

The technology of how we do the burning has changed, and the choice of fuels has changed, but really it's the same old shit. Most of the 'improvements' have been more for economic reasons, and thus have usually been the simplest and least expensive of changes, not the most efficient and certainly not the most creative.

We need to get on renewables, and quickly. Frankly, there is technology out there that would do most of that, but we don't for 'economic' reasons, which is to say, that the large powerful interests in fossil fuels won't let us do anything on a meaningful basis.

http://sutz12.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: Kent, WA
Member since: Thu Aug 27, 2009, 08:55 PM
Number of posts: 58,634
Latest Discussions»Wounded Bear's Journal