for budhaboy - Welcome to Rome

[plural]

In response to this post

you are missing something my dear man

you still think of this along a democrats vs republican line
when Al Gore was the man
who introduced and championed
the customerization of the american public

the plan was brilliant, and was executed almost flawlessly
allow people a level of individual access to government
which they had never had, and which allowed their needs to be addresssed
on an individual basis.

we cheered in selfish greed while they turned us from
citizens [shareholders] to customers

you see by allowing people to address their needs specifically
it removed the greatest power of the citizen
community

it used to be that you had to organize and
rally the people to get the government to respond to you
sure that was harder, but it also vetted out the worst ideas

now people, through the courts and "enhanced" regulatory systems
can go argue and deal with government solely on the basis of their needs
they do not have to frame them in a community sense
or even think about what would be good for the community

but most important in all of this
is who is taking advantage of this new access

it is not joe public
it is the lobbyists
where PACs used to have memberships
now they have mailing lists

all they need is the money now
to work the system
they dont need to rally support

We do not live in a two party system
it is a one party system
and the democrats and the republicans
are both pawns of that ruling party

look at donor lists
the vast majority of large donors
give to both parties
heavily

hedging their bets?

in a way they are

the goal of the ruling class
is what ruling classes always want

to maintain the status quo

so they funnel money to both sides of an issue
so that each side can keep fighting and drag things out
and eventually it goes off into limbo without ever being resolved

you see they only have to appear to be addressing what
the customers want,

if you do not want change to happen
draw two diametrically opposed lines
use rhetoric to draw people to either side
provide equal resources to each side
so that one can never really gain a significant advantage

then people argue it in the streets
watch congress argue it on c-span
until
finally they get bored or move on the next issue
then the original idea
forgotten and ignored gets put aside
perfectly unchanged and
the status quo is preserved

so then the question is

why did it change this time?

why did this election swing in one camps favor?

quite simply because
for once, someone in the ruling class
wanted something to happen

perhaps it is as simple as reversing some of the minor changes
which have occured in the past few years
but
that would be foolish to believe
considering most of those have already been gutted
in one way or another

no there is something bigger in the works
and the war in iraq
[which will start around january]
is more than just a pretext
it is a cloak to hide and distract us
from what is really going on

Remember back in two thousand
when CNN called florida for Gore
the entire bush family came on television
with smug looks on their faces
and said, nope isnt going to happen

they knew damn well
exactly what was going to happen

now
just a few weeks ago
the bush administration
called this election as well
said that not only would the republicans keep what they had
but they would gain seats in both houses

it is not pretty strange
to be so confident when historically
the party who holds the white house
looses seats in congress during an off year election

just to keep the seats they had would be a historic victory for the republican party
but they went a step further with confidence they predicted the most unlikely of scenarios
[according to historcal trends]
and
well you can look at the election results
I do not need to recap them

all of this matters little to me
when it goes south, which it will
I wont be affected

you see my family plays the game
but we have also hedged our bets
in case one of the bigger dogs decides to have our lunch

unlike most americans we have a plan of retreat
houses have been bought
citizenship papers need only signatures
and with the snap of a finger
the entire family moves to a more friendly country

and if anything I have told you
doesnt scare you
that should

Comments

your lj bio

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

I am a paranoid fuck...

*sigh*

[plural.livejournal.com]

that is only on a personal level

as in I am personally paranoid
which really applies more to information control
I like to be careful who can connect me to my journal
and am paranoid in that regard

when it comes to reality
I wear no tinted glasses

realize I come from a different world than most of you

I grew up in that world of half mile long driveways
house which need maps and helicopter trips to the city
spent my summers on marthas vineyard
when there was a party senators line up at the door

the system doesnt frighten me
it isnt a case of us against them
because I am them
born and bred

Re: *sigh*

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

So do you think the election in 2002 was rigged? If so, why did the Bushes go on TV at all? Why bother?

Re: *sigh*

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

make that the 2000 election.

[plural.livejournal.com]

they had to

if they did not go on tv to dispute it
it would have become accepted that gore won
and people would have freaked
when the results were actually posted

you have to realize that most elections are called and conceeded well before the votes are actually counted in entirety

Re:

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I realize that. Parties have people on the ground who are doing their own exit polling. They also have first hand knowledge of how much of their base they were able to mobilize. So they know before anyone else does.

Plus, when Bush and co. came on the air, it wasn't even that widely broadcast. Nobody paid much attention to what they said because it was assumed that they were saying it to maintain optimism on the West coast where polls had not closed. I guess what I'm saying is that people DID freak out when the networks recanted on their call.

Anyway, this probably isn't worth getting into. This isn't debate and I don't see how you could "prove" what you are saying w/o going into a level of detail that you probably don't want to go into.

I just have difficulty believing what you are saying, and I'm not exactly coming from a perspective of ignorance.

stupid lj tags

[swimslave.livejournal.com]

I meant to say

This isn't debate...

[plural.livejournal.com]

you are correct
I am not interested in going into that level of detail
I am not trying to convert people or start a movement

but if you think assume that in this day and age
some things are too sacred to be tampered with
you are putting a lot of faith in people

what I fail to see is why people are unwilling
to look beyond the constructs of political parties
and realize that there is one commonality shared between both

they are funded by rich people

rich people with differing aims perhaps
but all rich people have one commonality

to remain rich and to pass their wealth on to their children
[not yours]

human beings are solely motivated by necessity
we do what seems most necessary to us at any particular moment

even the most idealistic liberal
will choose feeding their children
over their propigating their ideals

because that is our biology

in the end
procreation and ensuring the survival of our offspring
is our most essential need

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

while on one level you make sense because human being are flawed, and will take full advantage...

Your statement: to remain rich and to pass their wealth on to their children

doesn't entirely jibe with reality given that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are staunch advocates of the Inheritance tax. Their reasoning: The history of the Morgans, the getty's etc... have shown that people who inherit MASSIVE wealth are total fuckups, and by keeping that wealth in the hands of bafoons is not the best use of capital.

[plural.livejournal.com]

he may not pass the majority of his wealth
to his kids but they will never be poor either

take me for example, my kids are not going to inherit cash from me either
[other than perhaps a token amount]

but I have set up trusts
to support certain areas of their lives
[like education]
which will leave them substantially better off
than most people

I agree that people who inherit large amounts of money are fuckups, of course they were fuckups before they inherited the money as well

the problem is not the inheritance
but that they have never had to work for anything in their lives

and by work I do not necessarily mean employment, rather that everything has been handed to them without them even having to ask for it.

that is what made them fuckups
vast quantities of money
just made it more obvious

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

>>vast quantities of money
>>just made it more obvious

touche

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

sorry about parking this seemingly unrelated post here, but I started off responding, got sidetracked, then realized I had to take off before I could save it somewhere else...

While what you say makes sense, I have trouble buying into a conspiracy in which a cobble of rich folks controling the world. I'm more inclined to believe that people being flawed are more inclined to work in their own best interests UP UNTIL they have violated whatever morality that is instilled in them.

One could argue that imoral people, given their greater ability to cheat could be more inclined to make heaps of money, and hence be more likely to screw people, but this honestly hasn't been my experience with rich folks (family or otherwise) I have known.

Generally, the richer they were the more stringenly they stuck to a staunch moral code... So much so, they truly wouldn't 'cheat' anyone, as the challenge of winning without cheating was far more provacative than screwing someone and pissing on their grave... where's the sport in that?

[plural.livejournal.com]

I agree completely
and I was not advocating a conspiracy theory

more an understanding of common interests

the people in power have interests in common with each other that they do not necessarily share with the average joe.

I completely agree with you as to the nature of the wealthy you describe, and understand that there are always exceptions to any rule.

I also view it as a flaw in human nature. Of course the other factor which comes into play, is simply education.

not only do the wealthy children have more education, they receive a different education than poor kids, and not just qualitatively, but in focus. The wealthiest kids are trained to replace their fathers and mothers in society and given a level of understanding of how the power structures work that even middle class children are not privy to, because their parents can not pass on such knowledge.

this and the fact that wealthier parents are more in a position to help their children suceed, both through resources and relationships is why we have seeming dynasties, two political examples are the bushes and the kennedys.

I am rambling a bit because my mind is on other matters at the moment but hopefully this will still clear up my thoughts a bit, feel free to pop more questions my way if I am not making sense or being clear in some way

[budhaboy.livejournal.com]

nope.

you are making perfect sense.

But I still think you are still lumping 'wealth' into a mis-defined class.

There are some seriously rich folks that I've known who were far too busy making money to ever give their kids the time of day. They've given them nothing in the way of a 'supplementary
' education you've described.

Similarly, there are people who I've known who are solidly in the middle class who have managed to give their children this same 'supplementary
' education.

Personally, I was made aware of such things, but never paid attention (my older sister is the one who took notes down that road). My parents were always solidly in the intelligentsia and instilled in us a completely different pursuit than power.

[plural.livejournal.com]

with regards to supplementary education
many time that is just a differing focus
at the schools they are sent to

the difference between the boarding schools I was sent to, and the local private schools, I attended, were huge, in both the form and focus of the studies

the first boarding school I went to cost more a year than most colleges, had secret service protecting the campus, and taught me quantum physics in my freshman year because I showed an interest in the subject.

that sort of school environment is entirely different both in form and function from even your average private day school. then you have the connections

in my dorm, ignore the rest of the school, were the children of six high level executives from major international companies, one child who already owned 30% of one such company, two children of senators, one congressmans daughter and a set of twins from one of the largest oil families in texas, who used to whomp on everyone until they rooted for the dallas cowboys.

now I am not saying that only the wealthy provide this sort of education, nor am I saying that all of the wealthy do either, just that for the most part what they teach their children is remarkable different

as for the lumping
wealth is a misdefined class
but to clarify I am not talking up
the upper middle class
I am talking about the upper upper class

but most importantly
even above the education is the understanding
and internalized messages that they instill.

for example, how much money is a million dollars?

this is huge differentiator between classes in america

to most of america it is a lot of money
some mythical amount t

ugg I hate it when comments get cut off

[plural.livejournal.com]

to most of america it is a lot of money
a mythical amount that means eternal happiness

but in reality, a million dollars is not very much money
in business a million dollars is nothing

this perspective greatly skews
the perceptions of what is possible

if nothing else this is a huge advantage

then there is the comfort level
I grew up around CEOs and Politicians
I feel completely confidant talking to them as equals
I have seen some many people I work with simply fold under
the pressure of talking to an executive

they are unable to relate to them
and unable to understand them
which causes fear

not to mention the unspoken protection one gets
when you crew the CFOs racing yacht every weekend
and date his daughter

You see, they thought of me as an equal
not in status at work but in social standing
they looked out for me, gave me advice
not on how to do my job but how to do theirs
because in their minds the could see me at that level

I can not even begin to express
how much of an advantage this comfortability
was to me in my career

[jmichiko.livejournal.com]

in terms of the one party system
we've been living in for quite
some time now, i found it
quite brilliant and amusing when
the daily show showed a map of the
u.s. for senate results with the
democrats as blue and the republicans
as indigo.

the only hope now is the proles, i'm afraid.