Ask yourself this.. have they ever had the ability before?

Can't use what isn't there.

---

I am increasingly convinced that there are only three possible routes to change:

1. Actual revolution, violence and all. Frankly, I think this is more likely than the other two. But, unfortunately, because we're a nation of ignoramuses/zombies, that route will follow the French example rather than the American -- which means we're in for several generations of revolutions, autocrats, feudal-style oligarchs, Committees for Public Safety, etc. That is, the American experiment will end, and won't be repeated in our lifetime.

2. Constitutional convention. This is where I thought the Tea Party might have headed at some point, had it not been co-opted by the GOP and the usual suspects of PACs, PR departments, influence peddlers, and the like. Add in the fact that the only discussions of constitutional conventions in the last 20 years or so has come from one-issue ideologues (e.g., pro-lifers of a particular sort), and the 3-gens-of-ignorance, and the chance of this reduces to virtually nil. Constitutional convention will either be co-opted by those same influence-peddling power-mongering cynics, made still-born by the know-nothing media labelling them as fringe wackos, or degenerate into revolution of form #1.

3. A significant fraction of the votes cast in national elections go to neither GOP nor DEM candidates. I'm thinking a minimum of 10% and probably needs to be closer to 20 percent. Those other votes don't have to win the election, but they have to be big enough to deny real "democratic" legitimacy to the winners. Only half (or less of eligible voters) are voting now, but as it stands, the winners can always claim close enough to 50% of the votes cast to claim a "mandate" for this year's version of more-of-the-same-shit.

But if the two main candidates are splitting 80% of 50% of the eligible electorate, that means the winner is only going to be able to claim the support of one-fifth of the adult population.

That will do two things. First, it will drive home the completely undemocratic nature of the system we're operating under. Second, it will make it easier for people to run/participate in political life in opposition to both parties. The ending argument "third candidates" always get is "you can't compete with the two big gorillas" to get enough of the vote. But this would allow those third party candidates to say, "sure, if the goal is to get 50 percent of the vote. But I don't have to get 50 percent of the vote, only 20.1 percent. Because that's all your so-called big gorillas can control.

This third to me offers the only real hope for meaningful change without revolution. And that hope is pretty slim.

If I had any meaningful financial assets to invest, and wanted to maximize my possible wealth 10-40 years out, I'd split them half and half. And then I'd put one half into investments that will prosper during a revolution, and the other half into the companies/organizations who I think are most likely to be headed by the controlling after-the-fall oligarchs.

And, no, I don't know what those investments are. Maybe whoever youI expect to win in the current Google v. Apple v. Amazon v. Facebook battle; more likely whoever wins in the next bloodletting battle between giant enterprises AFTER that first megabattle is resolved. And I'm betting most of them are going to be located outside the boundaries of the USA and Western Europe, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are outside the usual China suspects, too.

I still believe that this era offers unprecedented economic opportunity because the primary constraint is the supply of human ingenuity, and there's a lot -- a lot of a lot -- of that around if we could only realized it and put it into play. And I absolutely believe that the American Experiment, even with its federalist bent, is the greatest single political innovation in human history.

Where I despair is that we simply don't have the intelligence/understanding to follow our founder's wisdom. Because we don't even remember or recognize anymore what that wisdom was.

---

The internet actually fuels millions of businesses, not thousands.

But that is, IMO, largely irrelevant. Because the politicians atop the two major parties aren't determined by whether those millions of businesses (most of them "small") are pissed off or not. The big ones they can simply bail out a la the banks and GM. And the small ones they can ignore.

But they're irrelevant especially because those politicians in the end have designed themselves to appeal to the attention spans of gnats (i.e. the typical American consumer). And there are tens of millions of those.

You, and I, and those internet businesses, we're just a bunch of geeks. The parties are a group of oligarchs who treat geeks the way a sweatshop owner treats its employees.

Yeah, Google and Apple can mobilize things a time or two. But Google and Apple are just proto-oligarchs trying to control the battlefield for their particular monopolistic, oligarchic vision. Ask the Chinese whether those "voices of the internet" are part of the solution or part of the problem. Ask the Chinese whether they are a force truly willing to resist those who wish to control the internet. Or merely just a force to take that control for themselves.

Oligarchs worry about other oligarchs. They could care less about the peons. And most of us who are dependent on the internet. We're the definition of the best kind of peons. We are peons who think we actually matter to those at the top.

Hah.

---

You do understand I know this probably better than most and being technical deviates from the point, right? Okay, thought so. [duh]

I'm going to plug my fingers in my ears and ignore the rest because obviously you think I'm a damn idiot.



(curls in corner with binkie)

---

If you don't like either candidate, why are you even considering not using your vote? A writein for "None of the Above" is just as valid as voting for a candidate with a chance to win if you're not interested in either candidate winning. If people would stop voting for people they really don't like just because he's not as terrible as the next guy and would instead choose to use their voice in a useful manner, both parties would snap to attention. They'd still be self-serving politicians, but they'd at least be more interested in pandering to YOU, and less to the extremes on either side.

Ahhh... not wanting to and not are two very distinct differences. But thanks for the assumption. [grin1]

No worries mate.. just chewing the fat because I absolutely loathe the direction we as a country politically are heading. And I happen to believe the majority of the country is just going to vote either or. Hence the frustration.

Really the frustration is those that are towing the party lines just to tow it.The distinctions between the parties is just their visions on which policies will drive them to overspend and to be reelected.

We fight with each other on the behalves of parties that really aren't in it for us.. they are in it to be reelected and what policies help them in that cause.

---

Yup. Truth.

---

I definitely get the frustration, and I'm going to need to drag myself to the polls. But I'll do it, and I'll use my voice to express my opinion, rather than using it to say I support more mediocrity.

I've made predictions in the past regarding the election, that Obama would win by 5-8% of the popular vote. I think the recent fiascos in Cairo and Libya (specifically comments very early on condemning a no-name movie that was a ridiculous pretext to the attacks) will give Romney a bit of a bump, but unless this turns into utter insanity it's not going to be enough to save him. I just hope that there's enough country left by the time Americans pull their heads out of their asses to turn things around.

Nah. I"m not sure how you got that from what I said.

Oh, I think you (and most everyone here, for that matter) are generally too often too willing to give the government/politicians the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust them to do what is right OR to do what makes sense. I'm shocked on the rare occasions they do get something right.

And as I've said before, I would prefer to think of and call said government actors/politicians idiots (because I think the alternative often would be that they are evil).

But I don't think you are an idiot. The notion that those idiots might try to flip the kill switchis frightening.

I can't think of a single situation where killing the internet makes sense. Maybe if there's potential for a massive power failure and its a choice between powering the internet and powering hospitals, traffic lights, and such. But other than that?

I can't think of a single economic or moral reason for doing so.

---

---