While I understand the issue you are talking about I don't agree that it's a problem of the democratic system. It is how that system is being used by certain groups. Many other countries have a democratic system but their elections are probably not dominated by single issue groups.
The problem is that single issue groups get behind emotive subjects that they believe passionately in and others will undoubtedly feel passionately and follow them, often without thinking further than that one issue.
I've never under the point of voting for anybody who is into, eg allowing/banning abortion, allowing/banning guns, legalising/criminalising certain drugs, etc if they don't have any idea on economy, defence or indeed any other issue.
The root problem of our current democracy is that we have evolved into a nation of "single issue uninformed voters." Nothing else matters except THEIR issue. There is an absence of critical thinking, which is the product of our mass education and its associated multiple choice testing, and the spectator role of the population (TV) who used to be participants. I was fortunate sometime ago to attend Cambridge University in England, where one on one deeply layered teaching and extensive multi-view reading was the norm. Even though I had considered myself an educated person prior to that, I quickly learned that I didn't know squat about anything and that the deeper I got into a subject, any subject, the more I realized its complexities.
-- Modified on 4/3/2004 8:58:49 AM
While I understand the issue you are talking about I don't agree that it's a problem of the democratic system. It is how that system is being used by certain groups. Many other countries have a democratic system but their elections are probably not dominated by single issue groups.
The problem is that single issue groups get behind emotive subjects that they believe passionately in and others will undoubtedly feel passionately and follow them, often without thinking further than that one issue.
I've never under the point of voting for anybody who is into, eg allowing/banning abortion, allowing/banning guns, legalising/criminalising certain drugs, etc if they don't have any idea on economy, defence or indeed any other issue.
Carrie,
It is always good to see a perspective of US politics from the other side of the pond. Many don't know the differnec between conservatism/liberalism as known in the UK and in the US.
That being said....you point of single issue groups and emotion reminds me of two quotes.
"From the single minded idealist to the fanatic is but a step." F.A Hayek
"There is only one step from fanaticism to barbarism." Denis Diderot
TET
I think the underlying issue is a lack of education. I don't know how it is in other states, but here in Texas you get one semester of government and one semester of economics. Both classes are during your senior year in high school and are taught so poorly it's a joke. But yet this is all the majority of voters have to base their opinions on. There is no way they can be expected to understand major issues so they stick to what they can. "My body My choice" "Save the baby seals" (they're so cute) etc...
Democracy requires an informed electorate. Television has done wonders to dis-inform the electorate, in that it has dramatically diminished literacy, and nuance of ideas, and replaced them with superficial imagery. I am afraid that there is no recovering from this.
See my post below. It's not exactly television, it's the way it has been used.
/Zin
I've noticed that as a nation, we've lost our sense of civic responsibility and community.
Rather than being a nation of citizens who value our republic, we've become selfish and self centered.
Sudden;y, it's not about what's best for society as a whole, it's what's the best for ME!
People look at the Constitution and say they have absolute individual rights. Yet it was Jeffereson who wrote that the civil rights of the individual are not so absolute that they can trample on the rights of society as a whole.
The traditional argument about free speech and yelling fire in a theater.
Idiots like Nudow who scream about the pledge of allegiance using the phrase "under god". He admitted that as an atheist, he was offended. Well, there is no right to not be offended. If something offends you, move on. It is not injurious, there is no damage other than to ego. Pppphhhhhhtttttt!
We need to get away form the absolute individuality and the "me, me, me" attitudes. Maybe it's time to resurrect a radical old concept-consideration for others and practical thought!
Stop with the extremist, slippery slope crap. A cross on a mountain top as part of a veterans memorial is not state promotion of religion. Just because someone "might" be offended is no reason to assume that they will be injured.
Let's reform the whole legal system, make it a requirement to PROVE legitimate injury BEFORE lawsuits are filed. Eliminate the whole stress concept from lawsuits...in other words....tort reform (no I'm not a lawyer, I'm just sick of people getting a paper cut and suing the book publisher......the dumbass who spills hot coffee and goes after Mickey D's for millions.....the fat kids who scarf down a half dozen Big Macs each day and then sue because they're FAT......).
Where's the friggin' common sense out there?
one nation under god.....wich god and why?? its estimated that in about 2 generations that the religion of muslim will be the predominant one in the usa , so if the pledge becomes , one nation under allah , you dont think this will pose a problem..i do.."maybe its time to consider a radical old concept, consideration of others", your qoute !...once again wich god and why?, as stated in the pledge?
I've always adapted ``one nation under god'' to my view. It's the ``with liberty and justice for all'' that is sorely lacking.
Christ, it's been less than fifty years since the Civil Rights movement - I bet bribite and colleagues are still pissed about that one.
I'm always impressed by Libs who pull out the race card whenever they're losing a debate. It's the nuclear bomb of political discourse; use it, and there's supposed to be no response.
Problem is, a greater percentage of Republicans (i.e., Conservatives) supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats. Those who didn't, like Barry Goldwater, refused to do so because it abused the Commerce Clause as its basis, when it should have been justified by the "badges of slavery" language of the Thirteenth Amendment (an opinion also held by Justice William O. Douglas, no conservative he).
And the so-called "civil rights movement" has morphed into the grievance lobby. Individual "rights" have very little to do with it. Plunder and visiting the sins of the fathers on their sons are the main goals now.
losing a debate ? Is not ``under God'' in the pledge of allegiance - my statement of how I've adapted that phrase is not under debate. Nor, is the fact that there is not ``liberty and justice for all'' in this country.
Now, I may have been out of line by saying you and your buddy bribite may not support equal rights. However, as a whole Republicans are not generally viewed as a friend of the minority.
Boy, I guess the whole world is just out to get you - ``plunder and visiting the sins of the fathers on their sons''. A member of the drama club ? Poor James - cheer up buckaroo.
"may have been out of line"? I'm one of the few people around here (perhaps the only one) that responded to a nonsensical anti-Semitic remark. You weren't even in the stadium.
And no, the whole world isn't out to get me. "Plunder" is a reference to Ayn Rand. "Plunderer" is an appropriate description of those who would grow the Liberal welfare state and demand that the productive fund it.
"Visiting the sins of the fathers on their sons" is certainly an apprpriate description of the civil rights/grievance lobby, and its demand for quotas and reverse discrimination in the form of "affirmative action."
that democrats judge compassion as how many people are on welfare.
Republicans on the other hand judge compassion as to how few people are on welfare and are gainfully employed, productive, self sustaining citizens.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1965 would not have succeeded without the Republican Party. The majority of democrats in Congress and the Senate were opposed to it (some of those racists are still in office, for example Sen. Bird). That is the fact.
That democrats have filled our federal laws with "entitlements" aimed at continuing a "New Slavery" holding people back and making them dependent on "wealth redistribution" in order to garner votes is rapidly becoming clear to the Black voters. The Black community in this country has wholesaled their vote to these same new "slavers" for over 40 years, accepting promise after promise. and yet the inner city situation continues to plummet into poverty. Ghetto Pimps like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are rapidly loosing their support. This atrocity has not gone unnoticed by the Black Community. Things are changing and the Black vote is the largest growth area for the Republican Party.
The left's incessant proclamations of racism, intolerance, etc. is quickly becoming seen for what it is, and indictment of themselves, their actions and their own intolerance! Just look at the base responses from the left on this board alone!
As far as your claim that our country does not make "liberty and justice" available for all, while admittedly not perfect, what system would you suggest or prefer? I would offer to you that in this country people have the right to succeed and the right to fail! It's up to them, not some government program that has a proven rate of failure for over 40 years.
There may be a growing Black vote in the Republican party, however there are many Blacks that resent them - sellouts is the term I hear (money is the great equalizer).
As far as ``reverse discrimination'' your Boy GWB is a perfect example of why it was/is implemented - Do you think he would have gotten into Yale with his 1200 SAT scores (1200 according to James86 ???) if it wasn't for daddy. I'm sure there was a minority student out there with at least the same score.
``liberty and justice for all'' is a joke. Last I heard, the factor to which the Black prison population overrepresents the Black population is alarming to say the least. There are many other issues, such as access to health.
When it comes to the blame game minorities are often the target. In California (the piece of shit) Pete Wilson ran his entire re-election campaign against Mexican immigration passing legislation to deny health care. A nice thought, a child could lay dying in the street - oh, they may pick ``it'' up to clear the street. Of course, all of CA's problems were due to the illegal Mexicans just taking and taking without giving any damn thing.
I'm sure the Democratic party has its share of racists but I have no doubt that there are a greater number of Republican racists. Moreover, I believe there is a high correlation between racists and ``gay bashers''. At least to the extent that racist ---> gay basher. These patriots (gay bashers) are no doubt members of the Republican party.
Sellouts? Uncle Toms? That would be anyone of color that you disagree with!
A 1200 SAT was pretty high in 1968 before the test was dumbed down for today's public school lackeys. The first perfect SAT didn't happen until the mid 1990's. Furthermore, almost all institutions of higher education have a legacy admittance program. Your point is moot, he graduated from Yale and then graduated from Harvard College with a MBA where he was not admitted for legacy reasons.
A quick look at the Bush White House shows two of the most influential people to be "Uncle Tom's" Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Bush has appointed people of color to every position available, including many shot down by the narrow minded bigots of the Democratic Senate who have done everything in their power to stop any up or down votes on the floor of the Senate.
The fact that there are more Black men in prison is quite understandable when you consider the "entitlement" system started by LBJ that rewarded women for not having men in the household. More money for more babies, but only without a father present. Oh what a surprise, more black criminals. And that is the issue, a greater percentage of crime is committed by young Black males. That is not a racist statement, it is a fact.
As far as access to healthcare, you must be living on another planet! Here in California, hospitals are mandated to give care to anybody regardless of their ability to pay. And they are doing it, to the point where the burden is so great that many are just closing their doors!
You make a claim that Wilson is a racist for attempting to stop "Mexican Immigration" which is a total lie! What Wilson and the majority of Californian's voted for was to deny publicly funded resources for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! KEY WORD - ILLEGAL!
That many people do not want to set up a special class of citizens over sexual preference does not make them "gay bashers"! Claiming that it does makes you just another hysterical leftist!
I wonder if those of your ilk found anything odd about Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) saying that Senator Bird would have been a great Senator at any time in the United States History, even the Civil War! (Sen Bird was a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan for much of his life!) But I know that you all went for Trent Lott's (R-Miss) throat when he said something very similar about Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Even if Lott apologized for the implication while Dodd refuses to!
It is astounding that the goose stepping Black Democrat Ghetto Pimps have been voiceless in lieu of Dodd's racist comments! Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about "SELLOUTS"! There are your sellouts, Black Ghetto Pimps in Congress just going along as long as they get theirs! These are the real Uncle Toms to the White Democratic Nipple Machine which continues to hold their people down through "handouts".
Black people know Bird's history and the silence from the left and their own black leaders is taking a toll on their patience with their slavers!
Sellouts? Uncle Toms? That would be anyone of color that you disagree with!
A 1200 SAT was pretty high in 1968 before the test was dumbed down for today's public school lackeys. The first perfect SAT didn't happen until the mid 1990's. Furthermore, almost all institutions of higher education have a legacy admittance program. Your point is moot, he graduated from Yale and then graduated from Harvard College with a MBA where he was not admitted for legacy reasons.
A quick look at the Bush White House shows two of the most influential people to be "Uncle Tom's" Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Bush has appointed people of color to every position available, including many shot down by the narrow minded bigots of the Democratic Senate who have done everything in their power to stop any up or down votes on the floor of the Senate.
The fact that there are more Black men in prison is quite understandable when you consider the "entitlement" system started by LBJ that rewarded women for not having men in the household. More money for more babies, but only without a father present. Oh what a surprise, more black criminals. And that is the issue, a greater percentage of crime is committed by young Black males. That is not a racist statement, it is a fact.
As far as access to healthcare, you must be living on another planet! Here in California, hospitals are mandated to give care to anybody regardless of their ability to pay. And they are doing it, to the point where the burden is so great that many are just closing their doors!
You make a claim that Wilson is a racist for attempting to stop "Mexican Immigration" which is a total lie! What Wilson and the majority of Californian's voted for was to deny publicly funded resources for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! KEY WORD - ILLEGAL!
That many people do not want to set up a special class of citizens over sexual preference does not make them "gay bashers"! Claiming that it does makes you just another hysterical leftist!
I wonder if those of your ilk found anything odd about Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) saying that Senator Bird would have been a great Senator at any time in the United States History, even the Civil War! (Sen Bird was a member and leader of the Ku Klux Klan for much of his life!) But I know that you all went for Trent Lott's (R-Miss) throat when he said something very similar about Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Even if Lott apologized for the implication while Dodd refuses to!
It is astounding that the goose stepping Black Democrat Ghetto Pimps have been voiceless in lieu of Dodd's racist comments! Talk about hypocrisy. Talk about "SELLOUTS"! There are your sellouts, Black Ghetto Pimps in Congress just going along as long as they get theirs! These are the real Uncle Toms to the White Democratic Nipple Machine which continues to hold their people down through "handouts".
Black people know Bird's history and the silence from the left and their own black leaders is taking a toll on their patience with their slavers!
The Democrats were very happy to allow trent Lott to remain the majority leader, as a symbol of all that the Republican Party stood for. The Republicans knew that they could not stand to be tied to him in the upcoming elections, so they dumped him.
But then, this is just another bit of revising the actual history to fit your warped view of what SHOULD BE, not what actually is. Really, you don't need to go on lying on behalf of the Republican power structure, as they are VERY capable of doing it on their own behalf.
I view sellouts as you have essentialy stated ``... as long as they get theirs'' which is why I'm always disappointed by a minority Republican. But like I said, money is the great equalizer.
Now, as far as Bush goes there is no way in hell you can convince anyone that he got into any college based solely on his merits. Moreover, WTF does ``legacy'' mean to you - seems hard for anyone other than sons of good ole boys to get in.
Okay, let me try to squash the Republican/Democrat debate as far as I'm concerned. I nowhere stated that I believe Democrats are such a moral bunch. To me all politicians are full of shit. I therefore do not care about the Democratic hypocrits you refer to - for the most part they all are.
I do however feel that Republicans are the greater evil - whether or not they are comprised of a greater # against minorities (which I believe they are), they do support anti-abortion and anti-gay propoganda. For just these 2 reasons (everything else equal) I am against them - people that try to tell others how to live irritate the Fuck out of me.
Finally, the health care access to illegal Mexican immigrants. To me it is just sickening to deny anyone health care and the fact that his whole re-election campaign was based on this was pathetic (so, these people legal or not contribute nothing to the economy ?). I'm not impressed by anyone who blames problems on a certain segment of the population (reminds me of the ``Jewish problem'').
Also, I would like to appologize for the cheap shots I have taken at you in previous posts. I just really feel Bush is taking this country down a terrible path and I tend to be a bit over zealous.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Take care and I certainly hope the best man wins.
I've read writings from Jefferson and others that expressed the opinion that in order for the free society they were putting in place to work, it must be held together with a moral type glue. God "as they understood him" then, a Judeo-Christian God, was really the only point of reference they had because it was "that God" they understood.
It goes along with the admonition, "America is great because it's people are good, when it's people cease to be good, it will cease to be great".
Just think for a minute just how much we depend on "self-compliance" for social order. The vast majority of the time, order is kept, not by police rule but by each person's moral integrity.
That's my 2 cents.
BK
Its easier to live by these 15 ... crash !!! ... 10 commandments.
As to your question (which smacks of intolerance), thru the ballot box, we democratically let the majority rule. Again, I could be wrong.
BK
The fact is, one can base their personal morality on a belief system based upon purely humanistic criteria -i.e. that we are moral because we are above mere ignorant beasts, because we have the ability to reason, and fabricate our own social structure that acts to preserves order and encourage human endeavor.
I don't need there to be a god-force pervading the universe to make this so.
The fact is, our society is founded on the separation of the state from religion. And religion has always fought and resisted this separation. The inclusion of "under god" in the pledge is an offense to me and to others because it is designed to indoctrinate our children into a belief system that is not secular, but religious, and to do it using a secular institution (our public schools). In the REAL WORLD, children are stigmatized if they do not say the pledge. Therefore, they are pressured to say it. And to be pressured, by a secular institution, to acknowledge a "god" that they are perfectly and legitimately within their rights to believe does not exist is both offensive and in direct conflict with the founding principles of our nation. Now, it IS possible that our present Reactionary Supreme Court might find otherwise. But that does not prevent it from being offensive to those of us who do not believe in any god or gods.
refered to moral integrity rather than religious beliefs. I was simply trying to answer the question which God and why?
Sorry you find the pledge so dangerous and offensive but I think there are far more dangerous and offensive things being fousted upon our kids than the word God.
I've heard many muslims refer to Allah as "god"
It's not, one nation, under Jehovah (or Jaweh).
Of course, you gloss over the point of my post and focus on one minor example.
I find it interesting that liberals, in the mad rush to be inclusive of everyone and so protective of the individual, are willing to trample the "rights" of the majority.
Let's see.......it's a violation of the sacred "seperation of church and state" to have a prayer at a commencement ceremony or some other function, but it's not outrageous for people with strong religious faith to give thanks and freely celebrate THEIR relgious beliefs at a public function? Like I said, if you don't believe, you can be courteous and respect others monetary expressions of faith. And yes, if the ceremony had a large number of Muslims, I see nothing wrong with allowing them to express THEIR devotion.
So, lets trample over the rights of the individual for the rights of the majority. Well, this has been done, for example, in Nazi Germany (get rid of any opposition to the Nazi vision - be them Jewish or German non-conformist). Oh, I know you don't mean to take it that far but its not such a far leap (Those un-patriotic/traitorous Germans should have supported their leader no matter what they felt was right or wrong - They wouldn't have then met the same Jewish fate.).
Obviously we disagree. Now, I haven't glossed over your post and have read your last statement a few times to no avail and wonder ``what's your point''. Are you talking about the Muslim girl wanting to dress according to her beliefs at school - Well the difference there is that she is not imposing herself on others. On the other hand, I always resented having to proclaim my allegiance ``under'' someone elses ``God''.
Apply the slippery slope arguments all you want, you invalidate your position. The conditions for Nazi Germany don't apply here in the US. Don't forget, Adolph had his brown shirts who zealously believed in his views and beat the crap out of those who disagreed.
We don't have anything like that here, unless you count the psychotic skinhead factions and the Skokie Nazis (who I do believe were an extreme example of individual civil rights).
And define trample on civil rights. I hear that used a lot by liberals, but I don't exactly see the connection.
Because you "have" to "proclaim your allegiance under someone elses god", how have your rights been trampled? So don't recite the pledge. I ssume, from the comment, you are an atheist, since my POINT was that the pledge does not specfiy a SPECIFIC god. Hell, you could be swearing under one of the Hindu gods, or an ancient Greek god. The POINT(s) are that you are affirming, before the authority that you should consider your most holy (i.e.- your "god"), your allegiance to the nation. If you're an atheist, you have no beliefs in any god, so what's the problem? Oh, YOU are OFFENDED!!!!!!!
Well, BE OFFENDED. You have no sacred, civil right to NOT be OFFENDED. Get over it and get a life.
My other point dealt with a similar concept, prayer. If you HAD read the post, I mentioned prayer before a civic function (which the liberals again find offensive to their sesnitivities). My other POINT was that by enforcing YOUR ABSOLUTE CIVIL RIGHTS, liberals have trampled on everyone ELSES absolute civil rights.
It gets back to my original point, we've sacrificed the concept of societal welfare in favor of individualism.
As you said get a life - you can pray to your hearts content on your own time. Why do I need to be bored with it. I'm not offended just annoyed. At any rate, what are the real issues that threaten the welfare of your society - not having ``God'' in the pledge, gays being married. WHAT ??? What is it that threatens your society - Yes, we have different societies and to me that is the beauty of the US.
According to the liberal perspective, I can't acknowledge my religious beleifs on my own time, if that time occurs during a civic event.
If I wish to take time and give thanks for having been blessed with something at a civic function, it's people like you, who are "annoyed" and "bored" who DENY ME my right to express that religious viewpoint.
The "threat" to society is intolerant people like yourself. You are more concerned about yourself and your precious individual liberties that you have overlooked the value that other provide.
Another example is faith based charities. Bush wants to provide federal funds to faith based charities that provide public assistance. Again, to preserve the "seperation of church and state" he won't be able to get this done. I find it amusing that liberals are so offended that a Catholic charity, or the St. Vincent De Paul society can privately run a homelss shelter, and could do so much more if they had federal funding-thus helping the many that liberals want to have "compassion" for, yet the same liberals will squak the loudest if the money is provided.
Here in San Diego, we have a VERY successful faith based charity, but the tree hugging contingent crys foul if the City trys to assist them. Instead, they'd rather see half the money get wasted on administrative overhead to protect that seperation.
In the end, as you've implied, we have differing views on the welfare of the nation. I've noticed that the liberals who post here are just as narrow and close minded as the conservatives.
I think the oonly thing that IS saving the nation is the fact that there ar so many militant bigoted viewpoints from both extremes that it takes a majority of moderates to get anytjhing done.
I really don't care when or how you practice your religion. I just wonder why you need others to hear you ? As far as public funding goes I think many not only worry about seperation of church and state (that damn constitution) but that monies would go towards anti-abortion or anti-gay propoganda - Yet another one of those pesky individual rights many support.
Of course, if you don't agree with something then it is someone elses ``precious individual liberties'' that you apparently find such a nuisance (and I'm intolerant).
Too bad you missed out on JonesTown - no individuals there either.
I had Waco Texas!
As usual, I've tried to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
My mistake.
You seem quite interesting (and of course oh so intelligent). On the one hand, you are upset about not be able to express your religion at a civic function. Yet, on the other hand, you can adapt ``seeing providers'' into your belief system (does your religion support this ?). Hey, I got no problem with that - I definitely understand.
However, if you are so adaptable why not modify ``civic function'' to ``your church/home''.
Your problem is that you suggest that someone is being required to pledge allegiance.
No one has been required to do that since before "under God" was put into the pledge in 1954. It was in the 1943 Supreme Court decision Barnette v. West Virginia Board of Education.
Newdow isn't complaining about his child being forced to say the pledge, because it's well established that she wants to do it voluntarily.
He's complaining because anyone else dares to do it, and that offends him.
And on this planet, you don't have the right to not be offended.
If you did, boards like this would go the way of the dodo.
Love your comments. You hit the nail on the head.
As for proving injury, the Federal courts are already supposed to impose such a requirement. It's called the "standing" requirement. However, in places like the Ninth Circus, standing rules are [ab]used to allow idiots like Newdow to attack something his illegitimate child is doing with the approval of her mother, who happens to be the custodial parent, while that same court refuses to hold government liable for the injuries that its wreaks.
Common Sense? By which standard are you using to develop this common sense? Yours? Mine? Whos?
Is that common sense derived from companies that are so large that they don't notice or choose to neglect to notice people are dying from their products, so they spout "Personal Responsibility?"
Or is it derived from someone whos beliefs tell them to discriminate?
Do you have the answer?
I hate to say that Americans right now don't have the attention span or the intellectual wherewithal to expand beyond a single issue, nor to connect it to anything else. They've all spent their childhoods watching hour upon hour of television. The harm of television has been underestimated. It's not so much exposure to sex and violence, it's more the fact that it's directed video. Before their brains are really formed children are shown hour after hour where to look. After years of this training, they are quite accustomed to being manipulated, unable to recognize it, and are even comfortable with it. Their main identity upon adulthood is their market demographic.
We've now have successive generations raised this way, and it shows in our political process now. After spending their childhoods being formed into markets, they choose an issue like they choose a brand. Not only that, but this is exactly the way it is marketed to them. They don't have the volition to take the brand/issue and expand upon it. Instead, they'll turn to consuming something else.
It's not the technology, BTW, it's the way it has been used.
/Zin
Doctor Doctor what is wrong with me
This supermarket life is getting long
What is the heart life of a colour TV
What is the shelf life of a teenage queen
Ooh western woman
Ooh western girl
News hound sniffs the air
When Jessica Hahn goes down
He latches on to that symbol
Of detachment
Attracted by the peeling away of feeling
The celebrity of the abused shell the belle
Ooh western woman
Ooh western girl
And the children of Melrose
Strut their stuff
Is absolute zero cold enough
And out in the valley warm and clean
The little ones sit by their TV screens
No thoughts to think
No tears to cry
All sucked dry
Down to the very last breath
Bartender what is wrong with me
Why am I so out of breath
The captain said excuse me ma'am
This species has amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
Amused itself to death
We watched the tragedy unfold
We did as we were told
We bought and sold
It was the greatest show on earth
But then it was over
We ohhed and aahed
We drove our racing cars
We ate our last few jars of caviar
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Grouped around the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
No tears to cry no feelings left
This species has amused itself to death
You proceed from a false premise.
We live in a republic, not a democracy.
And while some of the comments seems to proceed from that distinction, asserting that we are a "democracy" is incorrect.
The Framers rightly feared democracy.
No democratic regime ever survived in history, because democracy is the rule of the mob. Madison arrived in Philadelphia perhaps better steeped in that history than anyone before or since.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep getting together and voting on what's for dinner.
We have been a Euro-centric Republic since we were founded by our early founders. If you were fortunate enough to go to Cambridge you would know, from the smallest liberal arts colleges to big state run universities, there are many people everywhere that take a multiple point of view perspective.
I think that is called being objective.
The US does not have the monopoly on ignorance. Our voters are trained, good little consumers that are used to being told what is right. Once basic survival needs are met, like food, clothing and shelter, we begin to talk about drivel like politics. The same thing happenes all over the world.
So please tell us all how smart you are because you went to Cambridge.