Thursday, June 5, 2014

Waiting For The World To Change

Victim City
"You lay down your money and you play your part ..." - Springsteen (Glory Daze).

You cast your vote then wait for change that does not happen (The Elections of Pontius Pilots).

And this is happening even as lots of blame-the-victim-ism is getting rampant around the globe, where it is a sort of bully religion that is happening in far too many scenarios, in far too many nations, and it is happening even in "the land of the free" (Bully Worship: The Universal Religion).

In the U.S.A. this plays out in one scenario when voters are blamed for what politicians do, once they get into office.

That blame-the-victim happens even if those politicians campaigned on a different foreign and domestic policy than what they implemented and promoted once in office:
Only one in ten Americans thinks Congress is doing a good job.

With numbers like these ... it's hard to imagine how any of our lawmakers will get re-elected in November. But sadly many of them will.

According to a new Gallup poll, Congress gets a 10% approval rating, which ties its all-time low for the past 4 decades.

83% disapprove of Congress.

What's more, Congress' approval rating is down among all political groups ... at 9% for Democrats, 11% for independents and 10% for Republicans.

While experts say it's hard to pinpoint exactly why Americans are so negative about Congress, the answer is probably "everything."
The country is on the road to ruin, and Congress bears much of the responsibility.

Yet chances are if you check back in after the election, many of these same lawmakers will be right back in Washington.

Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Here's my question to you: Why won't Americans vote Congress out of office?
(Cafferty, emphasis added). The implication is that the voters, not the government official, is to blame because people voted in error.

Yesterday, Dredd Blog began a series about aspects of the nature of our political stage being a duopoly.

That post also answered Cafferty's question:
One of the leaders in this duopolistic system recently commented that the system is currently morphing into a battle of the billionaires from each of the two parties, the two "sides" (Raw Story, Harry Reid).

He is saying that this system has morphed from a public election system, where voters decide the direction of foreign and domestic policy, into a moneyed system where only the billionaires have the main "say" in elections and national policy.

How is that the case, since the voters still get to vote?

Our Supreme Five on the Supreme Court have imagined that "money is speech," thus $1 is a word, $100 is a sentence, $1,000 is a paragraph, and $1,000,000 is a book.

So, how is the book on elections written now compared to before if there has in fact been a morph, a change?

Those who decide what candidate will run write the book with their money doing the talking, as evidenced by the Republican candidates all flocking or being herded to a gathering.

A gathering at a gambling casino where the billionaire for their side decided who he would bet on, what horse he would back, yes, who would be the party's candidate (Candidates Court Mega Donor).
(Moral Words In The Struggles Of A Duopoly, emphasis added). The power brokers decide who we can vote for or against, but that is of little to no moment when they have a unified position on issues that are not part of the debate.

For example, the previous presidential-election candidates did not mention climate change during the debates, for the first time in a generation:
But as noted by several debate watchers, climate change was never mentioned -- not by the candidates, and not by the debate moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News. Given the absence of the topic at the two preceding meetings between Obama and Romney, the close of Monday night's event marked the first time in roughly a generation that climate change has failed to receive an airing at any of the presidential debates.

Nearly 25 years after NASA scientist James Hansen famously told Congress that the science behind the greenhouse effect was clear -- and after similarly long-lived efforts to raise awareness of global warming and to force the topic into the national dialog -- the meaning behind Monday's milestone is likely to be hotly debated. To some, it is a sign that climate change has become a niche issue -- and is now being treated like any other special interest. To others, the candidates are merely playing the political odds in an election in which Americans are highly focused on jobs and other more immediate concerns.

But in the hours immediately following the debate, activists and climate scientists simply expressed a mixture of anger and disillusionment.
(New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage - 9). These failings are not the fault of the victims, the men, women, and children who are citizens.

No, the fault falls squarely on the heads of the men and women who engineer the demise of civilization (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment).

A song about the victims ...

1 comment:

  1. "What better way to enslave a man than to give him the vote and tell him he's free to choose his masters?'" -- Albert Camus