Here’s a question: Why are Americans

so easily intimidated by these sorts of police state tactics?

That’s not to say that anarchists and the like are intimidated, because they aren’t. Ordinary Americans are intimidated from protest or even dissent. And that, it would seem, is the whole point of these tactics. Show force of Authority and Americans, by and large, collapse.

I maintain this is a major reason why there is so little active resistance to the corporatism and imperialism that rules this country. There is some, to be sure, but it is hardly a mass movement; realistically, it’s becoming more and more marginal all the time.

And yet, without active resistance — including mass protest demonstrations, general strikes and the like, none of which attract anything like the support they once did — there is no way to curb, let alone stop, the march of corporatism/imperialism/fascism. Our votes won’t do it when our choices are either this corporatist/imperialist or the other one. Our lawyers too often are jockeying for positions within the corporatist/imperialist state or its private sector offshoots. Courts sometimes make quite a display of independence but they have no ability to enforce their rulings.

And the People remain largely passive.

Europeans, on the other hand, will take to the streets over anything that displeases them; they will get gassed and watercannoned, bludgeoned and dragged off to prison, and still they will fight, and their governments — at least from time to time — actually pay attention to their riled publics and have even been known to change their policy direction in response to public outrage. Same in Latin America and Brazil. Lawyers — lawyers!! — in Pakistan went to the streets and got their heads bashed in and were dragged off to the dungeons against the lawless actions of Musharraf’s dictatorship.

It’s unimaginable that lawyers here would take such personal and professional risks for the sake of the Law. It’s almost too silly to think of. They won’t do it.

What happened to make Americans so easy to manage?

Dinalinga says: Both.

Of the 535 members of Congress, I can count on one hand those I feel are honestly looking after the wants and needs of the citizens of this country. ONE HAND.

Clearly, if you don’t go along, you don’t get along. And then you’ll find yourself out on the street and out of office damn quick.

This is why term limits are such a good idea. 6 years for both Senators and Reps. If you can’t get a substantial amount of “public good” done in that period of time, you are a retard idiot undeserving of the office in the first place.

***

I’m arguing against tossing your vote to someone who stands AGAINST everything you believe in on the off chance that he won’t take money from an organization that also stands AGAINST everything you believe in.

Do you really think that because he’s not taking money directly from a PAC that supports his belief system that he’s somehow more likely to listen to YOU and therefore be swayed to see things your way?

I honestly am just not grasping how it could be of benefit to elect someone who’s entire belief system is counter to your own just based on who signed their fund-raising checks. I mean, if he’s a crooked self-serving son of a bitch, where he gets his money from isn’t going to change that. Likewise if he’s not.

Janie,
I do have a gift for pomposity. I’m glad you noticed. I’m just not sure what you’re arguing. Is it for something or just against Change Congress?

Very nice job at being pompous AND patronizing in 3 sentences or less.

If you’ll reread my post, which is fairly short and concise, you’ll note that I did NOT say I’m ‘happy’ with the legislature we have now.

I also know that one can safely say that THEY don’t take money from X, but their PARTY does and the money from the PARTY is behind the PERSON. So they’re out on a technicality and you bought the gimmick just like the Prom Queen when the quarterback handed over his class ring.

“[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently… and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”–Gore Vidal

What is interesting: He said that in 1972.

THAT is how entrenched, rotten, and corrupt the system is, and with roots that are THAT deep, only its destruction is worth pursuing.

Dingalinga: I believe it can make some difference in some individual races, which is why I support it. At least he’s doing SOMEthing, even if it isn’t how I would go about it. I guess I could support a revolutionary Ruby-Ridge cult if I wanted to, but that seems less smart at this time. In any case, I don’t believe this tack will make substantive changes to a process that is so rotted and corrupt that only wholesale destruction of it will produce real change.

Banky: And constantly bombarded? duh. That’s the system that’s now in place. No shit he’ll be constantly bombarded. Which is EXACTLY why there is a pledge to NOT do take money from PACs and why Change Congress tracks if they are living up to their word.

Dingalinga: To which I say, Big Fooking Hairy Deal. The Change Congress Pledge vs Lobbyist/PAC money is like a Bull Elephant vs Bambi. Only a bonafide serial paint huffer doesn’t know how that one is going to turn out. As I said before, what is Change Congress going to do when he breaks his pledge besides bang their fists on the table and list him on some obscure website? If I was Jacob, I wouldn’t care about that at all. I’m not saying I agree with it or wish it wasn’t so, just pointing out the obvious realities involved.

Banky: Cleaver’s experience may be a hindrance if you seek real change in government.

Dingalinga: Or, it may produce untold benefits via the connections he has made, and the money and influence he will garner as a result of those contacts. I dare say it’s more likely to be the latter.

Banky: And Rome fell because all branches of government were corrupt. And Caesar was appointed . . . for life. The parallels may be astounding. I’d love it if you would elaborate. Sounds interesting.

Dingalinga: I don’t have time to be a history teacher for y’all, sorry. But I will try and find a link or two for you to explore.

And as for Jane’s comments, I agree there are good lobby groups out there doing things we find important. However, when you look at the big picture, the current system of lobbyists and corporations running our country (into the ground) is by far more destructive than the benefits we are seeing from the work of the underfunded “good guys” out there. Until the system is blown up, we have only farther to fall.

Wait until you see what happens to your taxes over the next five years as a result of what we’ve let happen during the past eight. You are all gonna be piiiiiiiiiissssssssssed.

So you support something even though it won’t bring about any real change? Why support it at all then?

And constantly bombarded? duh. That’s the system that’s now in place. No shit he’ll be constantly bombarded. Which is EXACTLY why there is a pledge to NOT do take money from PACs and why Change Congress tracks if they are living up to their word.

Cleaver’s experience may be a hindrance if you seek real change in government.

And Rome fell because all branches of government were corrupt. And Caesar was appointed . . . for life. The parallels may be astounding. I’d love it if you would elaborate. Sounds interesting.

Janie,
I’m glad you think the current process we have works. Giving money to PACs so that they can influence those who make laws? You must be thrilled with the Legislative branch you have now. Kudos.

Why? The definition is too broad to fit into an ‘always’ or ‘never’ mindset.

Besides, I give money to organizations like the ACLU or NARAL or whatever in hopes that they’ll influence politics in the way I wish. If a candidate refuses those contributions, they’re refusing MY money, and telling ME as a constituent that we don’t share the same vision of America. That will affect my vote.

Honesly, Vincenzo, I fail to see how voting for a candidate who completely opposes those things you hold dear ONLY because they signed some ‘contract’ makes any sense at all.

I’ll keep voting for the issues I believe in, and I’ll keep giving my money to PACs and SIGs that further those beliefs in the hope that candidates will continue taking contributions from them and listening to ‘me’ via them, TYVM.