Divided we are conquered

We have not been conquered by an external force but by an internal force, namely “The Funders”.  Laws are made more for the benefit of the donors from large corporations than for the benefit of the people.

From one of my Outlook attic messages:

“Like a fever, revolutions come in waves. And if this is a revolution, then it broke first on November 4, 2008, with the election of Barack Obama, second, on February 19, 2009, with the explosion of anger by Rick Santelli, giving birth to the Tea Party, and third, on September 10, 2011 with the #Occupy movements that are now spreading across the United States.

“The souls in these movements must now decide whether this third peak will have any meaningful effect -- whether it will unite a radically divided America, and bring about real change, or whether it will be boxed up by a polarized media, labeled in predictable ways, and sent off to the dust bins of cultural history.”

This is the opening to “A Letter to the #Occup(iers): The Principal of Non-Contradiction”, Lawrence Lessig, Huffington Post, 2011-10-13.

Lessig calls on people to stop opposing each other and look for common ground, laws to benefit people rather than laws to benefit corporations.

Quotes of the day – governance

"That philosophy, simply put, holds that government is necessary and can be a powerful influence in making and creating a healthy social, economic and political climate." – "Opposing view: Reinert betrays values of the left", Will Munger DNT 2013-03-11

Will, a friend of mine, wrote this in response to "Other view: Minnesota at best when colored purple" about the "Purple Caucus", an attempt by Democratic State Senator Roger Reinert, Republican State State Senator Jeremy Miller, and others to work together to get something done for the benefit of the state.

I think Will is missing the point that the Purple Caucus was formed so that government works instead of having ideological purists demand the other see things their way.

The other quote is how polarization isn't addressing what most people want.

"Most of the country, it turns out, fits the mold of moderately conservative, a place from which careful, thoughtful change comes in a logical, rational, fact-based package that remains remarkably free of sound-bite-driven hyperbole." – Michael Charney, "Unconventional Wisdom: Barbara Olschner's 'The Reluctant Republican'".

Charney, a Coffee Party conservative, wrote the above in his article on Barbara Olschner's unsuccessful attempt to get the Republican nomination for Florida's 2nd District.  She came in fifth trying to be reasonable.  She wrote "The Reluctant Republican: My Fight for the Moderate Majority" about her experience.

My question to the Purple Caucus, Charney, Olschner, and others, when will this "moderate majority" show up at election time?

Some thoughts on compromise

To some, compromise means come promise to believe as I do.

Compromise between blue states and red states yields a purple nation; purple is the color of bruises.

Compromise conversation

A:  You owe me $100!
B:  I owe you nothing!
A:  Let's compromise; you owe me $50.

See also:
Not always two sides to every issue
More on two sides to every issue
π is an Obama liberal plot to socialize America
Compromise reached with flat earthers

Why I'm not a "full-blown liberal" and never will be

Given our polarized politics, many assume because somebody supports or refutes a given claim of one political party then that person must unconditionally refute or support the other party.  Many assume because I criticize Republicans or "conservatives" so often then I must be a Democrat or a "liberal".

I find it very easy to find fault with current Republican, so-called "conservative" positions.  There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions that it surprises me that any educated person would support the party.  Unless he or she had some personal gain from the corporate line parroted by the current Republican Party.  It is so ironic that Republicans and the Tea Party especially, claim to  follow the intent of the "Founding Fathers".  Well, the "Founding Fathers" were very much concerned about factions working against the common good.  If you have a week or two or three, read the Federalist Papers.  You can find it at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18 and choose your format.

On the other hand, I do not actively or even willingly embrace all "liberal" positions.  I find many people who call themselves liberal rather "conservative", that is holding to a position without consideration of nuance or contradictions.  For example, I have taken issue with the "Unfair" campaign.  Although the proponents deny it, their campaign implies a sweeping generalization, just the kind of generalization that they are fighting against when directed against people who are not "white".  Also, I think the "Occupy" movement confuses "freedom of assembly" with "freedom to camp out".

The latest ruckus that I have been skeptical of is the supposedly ill-treatment of workers at Foxconn plants in China.  It was reminiscent of the know-nothings who claimed that Soviet and Chinese workers were "chained to their benches".   Well, those who reported the claims against Foxconn are now having second thoughts about these claims.  See "'Significant Fabrications': Apple Critic Mike Daisey Under Fire".