07-19-2003, 11:06 PM
First and foremost, I'll try to clarify my understanding of why you (the masses) don't mean a damn thing in a system that should be based on you.
Running a campaign costs a lot of money, especially in the days predating any form of transmitted message. All those "American Hero" type presidents who rode around in external combustion locomotives lied through their teeth to every group of people they gave a speech to. Just to get the votes, and have the power. The lies weren't even the same, they were altered to best fit the views of the locals. Obviously now that can't happen with all the nation wide mass media coverage, but the lies remain in a diluted form. Campaign promises are no different from normal promises in that they are just words: nothing more that sounds strung together in a specific order in accordance with the syntax of the language. Should the politician decide to uphold the meaning, so be it. Should they decide not to, no repremand is available except to not be re-elected. Which brings us back to dough.
Massive expense requires even greater income, and who here can drop 170 million USD to save their first born, let alone to promote themselves for a job? Naturally, people of similar beliefs would gather, and those are called political parties. Higher wealth means more sets of eyes and ears receive your sales pitch. Being a member of an aristocratic family, having supporters or 'back-scratch reciprocaters' in large conglomerates, etc. adds a lot of zeros to the campaign budget just left of the decimal point. Given that high level party memebers of high budget parties are going to come from some fountain of wealth, the tight tholian web of corporate support is woven. Obviously each member of a party has some end they wish to see realized, and being human, are most likely self-serving to a certain degree. As each of the companies has their own interests which are fufilled by forming a covalent bond with the approprite political receptical (selective back-scratch reciprocating). When a president gets elected, they have access to a lot of strings which aggrivate the powers that sell. Once properly pulled, it's just a matter of pointing to the spot that itches.
The aforementioned condition of not meaning anything to the system is a serious side effect that stems from the covalent bond forming before the politician is in office, coupled with The (mass) Media's inability to report on serious issues (instead focusing on the stories that keep the audience rivetted to their seats during frequent commercial "breaks"). Instead of hearing something about Bush making welfare only available to those who are married, you hear "Black male wanted in connection to armed robbery" or "Bioterror attack 90% probably within 6 months". This makes it a teensy bit difficult in deciding whether that bloke in the oval office deserves another four years. Whether it's because of a choke chain around their necks, or just a result of kiss-assing, the truth never surfaces in one piece. Unfortunately every statement under that The Ring-esque black splotch is true, though not all of them literally.
Secondly, as of late I've noticed people (including myself) generalizing excessively. When I pluralize a nationality to use it as a noun, I'm making a reference to the every single person whom the parameter (of, or pertaining to the specific region) fits. By following it with a statment of observed (or informed/rumored) behaviour/whatever, I create a stereotype. Take France for example. The only universal statement I can make without discriminating anyone, is that all people living legally in France are French. To say something akin to them being cowards for losing* to an invading army, I am being rascist. When done in jest it is slightly more acceptable, but how long did it take for jokes to turn into vadalism and honest hatred. At one time, to rid yourself of your enemies, you pointed at them in public, and yelled "WITCH!!!". Later is was racial nicknames for Germans and later the Japanese. Soon after is was "COMMUNIST!!!" which was shortened to "COMMIE!!!". Now it's done by pointing and proclaiming somebody of being a terrorist. Or at the very least saying they help terrorists. To help illustrate the point, by a show of hands: Who here wants Bush re-elected for his efforts in combatting terror(ism). After that count is done, who wants him re-elected for other reasons (ie. excluding all things that have to do with TheWarAgainstTerror[ism] or recent hostile military actions). If somebody were to travel around and poll the loudest and most aggresively patriotic Americans, they probably wouldn't even know this president did anything other than "valiently strike back at the heart of the evil which defaced their country, and bravely defend their nations borders from..."etc. etc.
Democracy only functions if the populace is well informed, and a populace being fed by only one side of a partial truth is a populace in the pocket of the dictator they call hero.
::PostScript::
*Surrender or complete death/imprisonment is how you lose a war, not by the invaders "capping" all the flags. You either are completely destroyed or you hand over the keys to the invader and hope they spare your peoples lives. You basically swallow your pride and make a choice that you hope is best for your people. None of this "giving up" bullshit.
Running a campaign costs a lot of money, especially in the days predating any form of transmitted message. All those "American Hero" type presidents who rode around in external combustion locomotives lied through their teeth to every group of people they gave a speech to. Just to get the votes, and have the power. The lies weren't even the same, they were altered to best fit the views of the locals. Obviously now that can't happen with all the nation wide mass media coverage, but the lies remain in a diluted form. Campaign promises are no different from normal promises in that they are just words: nothing more that sounds strung together in a specific order in accordance with the syntax of the language. Should the politician decide to uphold the meaning, so be it. Should they decide not to, no repremand is available except to not be re-elected. Which brings us back to dough.
Massive expense requires even greater income, and who here can drop 170 million USD to save their first born, let alone to promote themselves for a job? Naturally, people of similar beliefs would gather, and those are called political parties. Higher wealth means more sets of eyes and ears receive your sales pitch. Being a member of an aristocratic family, having supporters or 'back-scratch reciprocaters' in large conglomerates, etc. adds a lot of zeros to the campaign budget just left of the decimal point. Given that high level party memebers of high budget parties are going to come from some fountain of wealth, the tight tholian web of corporate support is woven. Obviously each member of a party has some end they wish to see realized, and being human, are most likely self-serving to a certain degree. As each of the companies has their own interests which are fufilled by forming a covalent bond with the approprite political receptical (selective back-scratch reciprocating). When a president gets elected, they have access to a lot of strings which aggrivate the powers that sell. Once properly pulled, it's just a matter of pointing to the spot that itches.
The aforementioned condition of not meaning anything to the system is a serious side effect that stems from the covalent bond forming before the politician is in office, coupled with The (mass) Media's inability to report on serious issues (instead focusing on the stories that keep the audience rivetted to their seats during frequent commercial "breaks"). Instead of hearing something about Bush making welfare only available to those who are married, you hear "Black male wanted in connection to armed robbery" or "Bioterror attack 90% probably within 6 months". This makes it a teensy bit difficult in deciding whether that bloke in the oval office deserves another four years. Whether it's because of a choke chain around their necks, or just a result of kiss-assing, the truth never surfaces in one piece. Unfortunately every statement under that The Ring-esque black splotch is true, though not all of them literally.
Secondly, as of late I've noticed people (including myself) generalizing excessively. When I pluralize a nationality to use it as a noun, I'm making a reference to the every single person whom the parameter (of, or pertaining to the specific region) fits. By following it with a statment of observed (or informed/rumored) behaviour/whatever, I create a stereotype. Take France for example. The only universal statement I can make without discriminating anyone, is that all people living legally in France are French. To say something akin to them being cowards for losing* to an invading army, I am being rascist. When done in jest it is slightly more acceptable, but how long did it take for jokes to turn into vadalism and honest hatred. At one time, to rid yourself of your enemies, you pointed at them in public, and yelled "WITCH!!!". Later is was racial nicknames for Germans and later the Japanese. Soon after is was "COMMUNIST!!!" which was shortened to "COMMIE!!!". Now it's done by pointing and proclaiming somebody of being a terrorist. Or at the very least saying they help terrorists. To help illustrate the point, by a show of hands: Who here wants Bush re-elected for his efforts in combatting terror(ism). After that count is done, who wants him re-elected for other reasons (ie. excluding all things that have to do with TheWarAgainstTerror[ism] or recent hostile military actions). If somebody were to travel around and poll the loudest and most aggresively patriotic Americans, they probably wouldn't even know this president did anything other than "valiently strike back at the heart of the evil which defaced their country, and bravely defend their nations borders from..."etc. etc.
Democracy only functions if the populace is well informed, and a populace being fed by only one side of a partial truth is a populace in the pocket of the dictator they call hero.
::PostScript::
*Surrender or complete death/imprisonment is how you lose a war, not by the invaders "capping" all the flags. You either are completely destroyed or you hand over the keys to the invader and hope they spare your peoples lives. You basically swallow your pride and make a choice that you hope is best for your people. None of this "giving up" bullshit.