"I think to many people extrapolate the complacency far into the downcurve of oil depletion.  The really interesting time cmoes after the wake-up call."

Where I am, jobs are disappearing, house prices are falling, and people are on the verge of panic.  Every time the wind blows from the east, you can smell that fear sweat that Don wrote about.

I don't really agree with your assessment.  I don't think Republicans are up front about protecting power and wealth at all.  Republicans put up a front in the form of trying to enforce narrow religious values (outlawing abortion, attacking gays, the whole Schiavo fiasco, etc), and look out for the "small businessman".  They're rarely upfront about their real agenda which is helping out the ultra wealthy and extremely large business at the expense of everyone else.  

Republicans wouldn't have a chance of getting elected if they said what they really stood for.  They need the religious zealots and moderately well-to-do middle class, as well as small business voters.  But the reality is they do nothing for those groups-- nothing positive anyway-- besides offer lip service and hand-me-down scraps.  

In my opinion Republicans are much more crass when it comes to their real agenda compared to their claimed agenda.  

Not sure I agree with quite all of that but gotta love scpeticism and cynicism

"They are both two different sides of the same coin."

You're right.  Looks like we are already on the same page.

Have you done any in depth reading about the Trilateralists?  The Carter admin was stacked with them.  There is a well researched book called Trilateralists Over Washington.  

Of course, there are many other elite groups working under the radar but the MSM never reports on their activities.
That ALONE should be a clear signal that the rest of us are outside the loop.

Another oddities that should send warning signals, besides (as you point out) the cozy relationship between Bush Sr. and B. Clinton, include other unusual pairings such as Kerry and Heinz (late husband a Republican and she switched parties right before Kerry threw his hat in the ring for POTUS).  The classic example, and perhaps most bizarre is James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin.

That last pairing officially put American pseudo-bi-partisan politics into the realm of Theatre of the Absurd.

Too bad I'm not good at graphics because photos of these two nutcases would make for a good visual.

"I do recognize that coalitions of monied interests have corrupted our govt. "

This is precisely what I was suggesting is the oversimplification. This is the men in smoke-filled back rooms. My suggestion is to step back yet again. Why are these men (and a few women) in the position to influence our government? Why is our government susceptible to them? But even more importantly, what place do these people have in our culture? How is it that they (and their money) are influential in our broader society? Or turn that around, why does our society raise people with wealth into positions of influence? Better yet, what do we learn about our soceity and culture by understanding such people?

Let's face it, if Warren Buffet stood up tomorrow and said we should all stop pursuing wealth, should stop driving, become vegetarion, move to a farm and learn organic gardening, etc., what do you think would happen? Likely his children would have him committed. While people may be the local actor, the carrier of culture, so to speak, the individual only has that power to affect change that is available to them from where they stand in that culture.

"If you have a background in pol sci it is hard to imagine that you wouldn't appreciate the inherent problems a continually centralizing economic and political force presents to represenative govt."

I've met lots of political scientists who see no contradiction between centralized economics and institutions and representative gov't. Indeed, one of my best teachers was such a person (Saul Mendlovitz), he and others believe our best chance to avoid the woest of corporatist control of the planet comes in the shape of a representative world government. I disagree with them, though.

Indeed, your statement attributing those certain beliefs to me is somewhat baffling. I don't see where you are drawing it from. And clearly you haven't read other posts of mine where I make it clear that I not only believe that the current economic system will collapse, but believe that collapse is the best thing that can happen to us. What I actually see happening is the collapse of western civilization - not just the economy. We may have contributed some excellent ideas and institutions to the world, but I believe that we have gone over into excess. We are, in the construction of Toynbee, idolizing an ephemeral self and are no longer capable of reacting to the changes in our world in any manner other than we have in the past. (Indeed, this is precisely why one of the worst aspects of globalization is the concurrent homogenization of our lives.) This inability to respond with new social ideas, institutions and ways of living will condemn us to failure. What will make this collapse so utterly tragic is that western civilization has spread into every corner of the planet. The economic system you are concerned about being too centralized is the economic system of the western civilization, carried out to its illogical extreme.

Ok, I'd better bring this to a close. I'll check back on this thread occassionally to see if you'd like to continue this discussion. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll have chances to exchange barbs in other threads ;-)