Buying Votes, Version 4.1

To me history is fascinating.  I paid especial attention in school to the part about voting because it was a concrete example of what people will do for power.  It used to be that citizens could get paid for "voting early and often" by candidates and political parties.  There have been numerous attempts in various forms to keep certain categories of voters from participating in elections.  From exclusion to poll taxes and tests to simply standing outside polling places with baseball bats, intimidation both subtle and violent has been used. I contend that the same sort of tactics are being used in modern (within the past decade) elections. Nowadays, it's just a matter of keeping the money "in the family" and "paying" election officials, voting software companies, the media, and courts to get the desired outcome.  Am I comparing the U.S. government to the mafia?  Not entirely.  In this one way I am drawing a parallel between organised crime families and the major political parties.  Not intentionally, mind you, since I didn't even notice that similarity until just now.  Just as gangs originally formed to protect newcomers and minorities from attack, the U.S. government was formed to protect all citizens from all threats internal and external. On a side note, that's a pretty big job: "all" of the people and "all" the threats.  Can government protect citizens from themselves, their own ignorance and greed?  Gangs went bad and turned into mobs, instead of protecting community from actual threats they created extortion rackets; the U.S. government has been twisted in a similar way, it no longer looks to protect and improve the lives of citizens but merely to maintain the control it has established.  It is the intention of groups seeking power to use whatever means deemed necessary to both gain and maintain the appearance of that power/control.  Notice that I placed a couple of conditions in that last statement: "deemed" and "appearance".  It is not unavoidably necessary to use force to achieve a goal, rather it is a choice based on personal disposition.  Then, even after sacrificing honour and respectability, those who bully are not "in charge", they simply have a tenuous agreement with others that those people will do what the bully says and the bully will not hurt them overly much. What this points to is the same answer in each case: the others standing up to the bully.  This does not necessarily mean a violent clash or even dramatics, only that those people stand together and make it clear to the bully that their days of being bullied are over.  Admittedly, the difficulty in making this point is that I'm painting with a broad brush and not defining which politicians or parts of the government are being used to these ends.  It is a large topic to explore and I'm essentially introducing it here and leaving refinement and definition for later.


In closing, what I've brought up is that it is still not, "one person, one vote" but instead "one dollar, one vote".  This is an application of the golden rule of: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Going Deeper into the Heart

I felt I might need to be a bit more explicit about what the problem is with this situation and what I meant by saying, "...trying to create a new generation that is better to their liking."  The article gives an overview of the process and consequences but it comes down to money being the motivation rather than education or the needs of the students.  This large buyer in one area is determining what is going to be printed by these textbook companies in all areas.  The school board with the most buying power is setting the curriculum for most other school boards.  It's the equivalent of Wal-mart where the store tells the manufacturer what they will pay for the product instead of the manufacturer selling to the store based on how much they spent making the product.  In this case, the school board is telling the publishing companies what will be included in the textbooks regardless of what consumers or authors want or need to be included.  These are the same types of companies that use large amounts of the money they get to influence elections and lawmakers to continue allowing toxic (by differing definitions) products to be made and sold unregulated.  Companies which are willing to trammel the rights and opinions of others.  Companies which operate under the guise of "free enterprise" or even "economic Spencerism" if you will.  These companies are actually rigging the market and government regulations to their advantage, continuing to dupe the public.  I will address the "money in politics" issue soon, as it is necessary and unavoidable.

I recognize that it may be uncomfortable and/or difficult to read too many of these posts in one sitting, so please, pace yourself and do not become so enraged by these injustices that you do something reactionary.  Any real change to these problems will require conscious, thoughtful, coordinated, and sustained effort.  Join up with others who understand the situation and make yourselves heard.  Remember what Margaret Mead said!

Buy in Haste, Repent in Leisure

One of the most troubling parts of capitalism is that it does really well when people lack the ability to make an informed decision.  Throughout the history of buying and selling, having an uninformed and uneducated public is key to hucksters and their snake oil empires.  Claiming the whole time that people wouldn't buy their products unless those products worked and "you can trust me because [neighbor/friend/relative/famous person] did!"  The appeal of joining the crowd, of abdicating responsibility for vetting a product to the larger group, is that there isn't any one person to blame.  You can't blame your neighbor for getting you into it because everyone on the block did the same (maintaining friendly relations); you aren't at fault because everyone else bought the same thing, you aren't any better or worse than any of them (preserving your self image and status).  Looking back at what these carpetbaggers have done, it's easy to see why they kept moving: they had a hard time continuing to rip people off once their credibility was shot.  Nowadays, however, with a "global economy" and multinational corporations, we are seeing the same tactics being successfully used over and again.  Most likely this is due to "consumers" (1) not having the knowledge to adequately check products, (2) being overwhelmed with choices and advertising, (3) not making products' risks or shortcomings widely known, and (4) companies generating a slew of products and overwhelming the marketplace.  Asking "what is the difference between the product that came out last week and the previous version" from just last year?  Is it really so different that I need to spend more money?  Or are these things just flashier versions of the same thing or something I really don't need?

When we have finally have adequate education and gain the necessary experience, we will no longer be so easily taken advantage of.  This wouldn't just lead to an implosion of sales of worthless products, but rather to those products being successful which would endure and be helpful .

Deep in the Heart of Dumb-ass

Recently there was a move by the Texas State Board of Education, just another day on the job; they are, however, trying to create a new generation that is better to their liking.

The Gift of Giving

There are very few valid reasons for anyone to have an excess of a commodity, basically only two: in order to give it to others or to save it in the short-term for a known or unknown need. This is true of any commodity, whether it be food a farmer grows or money a "philanthropist" has accumulated. Why do I say only these reasons? This is because any other rationale is an excuse for self-serving and unnecessary hoarding. What could be the broad, human benefit of holding on to things one does not need?  Whatever you just thought or actually said out loud, those are the selfish and short-sighted excuses I mean.  The system of capitalism encourages artificial scarcity and hoarding because it thrives on insecurity.  This has to do with the desire of business owners to have a workforce they can control and is another topic altogether.  There is no rational, valid reason for any to suffer when there are so many resources available; it is just that those who are able-and allowed-to keep more than their share want to leverage more power and status.  All this leads not just to suffering of those who do without those missing resources.  It is also that those hoarding the resources are doing without the joy of giving and providing to others, they are lacking that basic connection to those around them.