<Book Review: World Made by Hand The Oil Drum The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This Might Be an Idea Whose Time Has Come>
<DrumBeat: May 1, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: May 3, 2008>

182 comments on DrumBeat: May 2, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

NeverLNG on May 2, 2008 - 11:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Leanan-- your opinion if you care to give it:

"They" were almost hopelessly divided, but as Gary Wills describes, (Henry Adams and the Making of America)even Jefferson came around to accepting the need for a strong central government. I suppose "they" hoped they could create stability without degenerating into a new monarchy.

Now "we" are stuck with their fateful choices-- how could "they" have forseen that "corporations" would be counted as "persons" with rights to "free speech" and yet no statutory responsibilities to support the nation that supports them?

At this point, do you really think it matters which of the candidates we have been presented is elected?

Is Emma Goldman correct? ("If elections really changed anything, they would make them illegal.")

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on May 2, 2008 - 11:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

At this point, do you really think it matters which of the candidates we have been presented is elected?

No. None of them would have gotten as far as they have if they were not supported by our corporate overlords.

I don't know that I'd go quite as far as Emma Goldman, but change comes slowly in the US.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
fleam on May 2, 2008 - 11:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think the Founding Fathers didn't really know what corporations would be, and the closest thing they could imagine to these monsters were what were known as "joint-stock companies" and those were already known to be evil. The Founders wanted a wealthy, landowning aristocracy to run the US, voted for by those (white males) who were at least to some extent wealthy - they had to own land to vote. And there was even a reward for being *more* wealthy, in that 3/8 vote or whatever it was per slave. Slaves then were like machines now, a measure of wealth. What they could not forecast was that artificial beings, corporations, would end up being the aristocracy in the US and that they'd have the ability to brainwash people to go along with this for the most part and think it's wonderful.

And Emma Goldman was right.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on May 2, 2008 - 3:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

the US governmental system is much more democratic than our parliamentary system. You have devided government, mid term elections and state governments. In a parliamentary system the majority party appoints the executive and you are stuck with them for 4-5 years. In that time they do what they like and can disregard the electorate entirely. MP's rarely vote against the party line and there are no checks. Local government can be overruled at the governments whim and can be reorganised and even have it's financing withdrawn if the government chooses. US is better.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sgage on May 2, 2008 - 4:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

For quite some time, 80% of the American public wants us out of Iraq yesterday. And yet?

Some democracy.

Time and time again, you seem not to have any idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are being sarcastic, and I'm just missing it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

182 comments on DrumBeat: May 2, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version