On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Paul Tanner <upprho@gmail.com> wrote:

> Voting is a quite distant form of control, more like the remote control
> channel changer.
>

So what? Therefore don't vote? It's the only form of control the
average Jane or Joe has over what laws we do and do not have. (If you
are an average Jane or Joe and do not vote and if I run for office and
find out, then you think that I'm going to do anything other than
ignore you?)

No, not "therefore don't vote" but "therefore don't *just* vote".

Make speeches on Youtube, join a Neighborhood Association and/or PTA.  Write posts in cyberspace.  Volunteer with non-profits.  Contribute to campaigns (time/energy, not just money).

I have a family member who flies to DC and visits with Congressional offices.  I personally don't do that, but I do other things.  I've been on a Neighborhood Association (but am not on one at the moment).

My household does lots of volunteer service that affects the local political reality.  I think I also mentioned my leadership role in the Occupy movement, which makes sense given my family has worked with Egypt and Libya and other Arabic-speaking nations (I've forgotten most my Arabic).

I call our house the Blue House, an allusion the the White House on some level.  I consider myself potentate, like a president, king, or prince.  I should read more Machiavelli maybe.
 

>> Note: If you have voted for the more conservative Republican
>> alternative when you vote, then you have partly caused this mess.
>>
>
> I'd say all the presidents since Eisenhower have been trapped in the post
> WW2 system for priming the economy, which is / was through defense
> contracting, with the pork distributed to all 50 states in exchange for
> various levels of cooperation.
>

I'd say that this is flat wrong.

I'm not surprised, but then your analysis in general is quite shallow.
 

For instance:

You claim you like Medicare. But it's a fact that every last
Republican back then voted against its creation every last step of the
way until the very last vote when its final passage was assured. Only
then did some switch to try to cover their asses.


I'm to your left Paul, not to your right.  You confuse me with your "conservatives" because you can't seem to find me on your political spectrum dial. 

But then I'm not your typical "left winger" in some other respects e.g. I'm not a Marxist.  I believe in liberal sharing of skills and ideas, w/r regard for "race" (which I don't believe in anyway), creed, or birth place. 

Engineers contribute more to the political change process than most politicians.  The free / open source software movement has transformed the USA economy in the last couple decades, in ways the bookkeepers don't have to reflect on their books.  Multi-billion dollar industries on these community-sourced technologies. 

High schools are among the last to update their curricula accordingly, given these are the most conservative institutions and slowest to change.  But SQL is slowly making more inroads, along with Python, Perl, PHP and all the rest of it.  Math teachers haven't gotten the leadership they need from NCTM, can't say that's surprising.
 
So if you say that voting is not necessary or that voting for the
right people is not necessary, then there are so many examples in
history that prove this wrong, it's beyond belief why anyone would
believe it.


I didn't say that. 

If you want to talk about implications, I was more implying you're hardly qualified to boast of your political savvy and activism if all you do is vote. 

I am far more politically active than you are, is my working assumption.  I don't "just vote".  I'm a community organizer (I'm saying that to thumb my nose at Citizens United and their execrable movie 'Occupy Unmasked' which demonizes "community organizers" (a pot shot at Obama).

Paul:
>> I'm only talking about voting: I'm talking only about whether people
>> vote for more liberal or the most liberal or more conservative or the
>> most conservative candidate.
>
>
> Voting might just be how people fool themselves into thinking they're doing
> their part for democracy.  They pull a little lever once every two or four
> years and think that's the sum total of their contribution.
>

Therefore don't vote or don't vote for the right people?


No, therefore don't just vote, and if that's all you do then maybe listen to your betters for a change. 

You have a lot to learn.
 
>> My arguing that people should vote and my wanting them to vote for the
>> most progressive candidate among all the given choices says nothing as
>> to whether I would think that enough people would vote in such a way
>> over enough election cycles to cause the US to have the same type of
>> laws as the Scandinavians.
>>
>
> It's not just about "laws".

So what? Therefore don't have laws or don't have the right laws?

No, therefore don't be a total cop out in thinking laws are all that matter.  Or voting.

So what? I repeat: Medicare and all good things like that from
government is "laws" - without which the level of suffering and
premature death from lack of health care would be much greater.


Government helps pay for Medicare but the private sector delivers the services for the most part.  Medicare is a public / private partnership.

But then "we the people" are the government, so to include the people as private sector (not on government payroll) is not to exclude them from governance.  "Cyber" means "steer" and when it comes to steersmen (statesmen), you'll find them on the Web, helping to guide, lead, and steer.

Project Renaissance is a lot about public / private partnerships:

http://grunch.net/archives/41  (more about my policies / guiding principles)
 
>
> To have universal health care at a high standard, you need way more than
> "laws" and way more than "money":  you need a lot of highly trained health
> care workers with equipment and facilities, happy enough practicing health
> care to want to contribute their professional services.
>

So what? Don't expand Medicare to all to stop the suffering?

I probably wouldn't call it "Medicare" and I might open it up to non-nationals more, as providers as well as clients.

A lot of the better more affordable providers of medical services might be outside the USA, say in Canada.  Why ball and chain people to only domestic providers, including for meds?

Kirby