Sen. Fred Thompson announces on "Tonight Show"

[DeeZire]

I hold that the vital dynamic of a people emerges from the people, without direction or guidance, only protections as outlined in our founding documents.....If you wish to move the vital dynamic from the people, from the individual, to the collective power of government, I, and most of the country will take arms against you.

My problem with government is that it's being run in the interests of corporations, not in the interests of the people. The K Street project is a perfect example of that - laws being written by corporations and their representatives, with the voice of the people absent. I would suggest that there are more poeple disgusted with this aspect of politics than there are people concerned with the 'collective power of government'. Half the country doesn't vote because they feel disenfranchised by their government. They think, 'my vote doesn't matter'. Unfortunately, to a degree, they're right.
This is where guys like Fred Thompson can make a difference. He's personable, and he may draw in more voters. Of course, the same could be said for GW Bush, and look where that got us.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

My problem with government is that it's being run in the interests of corporations, not in the interests of the people. The K Street project is a perfect example of that - laws being written by corporations and their representatives, with the voice of the people absent. I would suggest that there are more poeple disgusted with this aspect of politics than there are people concerned with the 'collective power of government'. Half the country doesn't vote because they feel disenfranchised with their government. They think, 'my vote doesn't matter'. Unfortunately, to a degree, they're right.
This is where guys like Fred Thompson can make a difference. He's personable, and he may draw in more voters. Of course, the same could be said for GW Bush, and look where that got us.

This is the ideological difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans believe that if the filthy rich in this country get a lot richer, everyone benefits. Regan called it "Trickle Down". Other administrations have called it by other names, but it's all the same. If the robber barons, like Halaburton, of today get too much money then some of that will slip through the cracks and trickle down to the middle class. That assumes the Richest Americans aren't greedy - Bad assumption.

The Democrats believe that business will take care of itself and they put their efforts into social programs (Unemployment, Welfare, Social Security, Aid to Schools, etc) that benefit the middle and lower classes directly. As you recall, the disgusting, booming Economy and full employment that Clinton (Democrat) left to Bush had to be fixed by the new (Republican) Administration.

In truth, neither ideology is really right. To make the country work, government has to look after both Big Business and the people.

 

[Guest]

In truth, neither ideology is really right. To make the country work, government has to look after both Big Business and the people.

How would you feel about running?

"In a surprising election day, the Literotica Candidate won by a landslide. Who knew that of the 40% who actually goes to the polls on Election Day, that 98% of them surf porn and want a Constitutional Amendment protecting their rights to do so?"

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

How would you feel about running?

"In a surprising election day, the Literotica Candidate won by a landslide. Who knew that of the 40% who actually goes to the polls on Election Day, that 98% of them surf porn and want a Constitutional Amendment protecting their rights to do so?"

I can see it now... The Lit Porn Party Candidate

 

[Guest]

I can see it now... The Lit Porn Party Candidate

I could see Abs as the new Karl Rove...

Cloudy as Chief of Staff

 

[DeeZire]

I'd love to see Jenny's critique of the bills from congress as they crossed her desk.
"This bill is so poorly written, it makes my head hurt. There's no character developement, no plot. What were you thinking? Don't quit your day job." (Or should it be "please, quit your day job".)

 

[amicus]

DeeZire... "...My problem with government is that it's being run in the interests of corporations, not in the interests of the people..."

~~~

Deezire....We each have our own reasons for contributing to this forum, mine is, I think, as a sort of journal or diary of thoughts and ideas since I do not have the discipline to actually keep a journal going, talking just to myself, so the exchange of ideas sometimes offers a motivation.

A great many people dislike, don't trust, fear, business, corporations, industry, the entire process of creating wealth, making, saving, investing wealth, in the form of money or valuable commodities.

Viewing politics, government, industry, from the top down, can be an immense undertaking and very confusing and overwhelming at times.

Just recently I went page by page through a 21 page 'product', a graduate thesis of a friend who is working for his Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering. It is 21 pages of mathematical equations including advanced calculus, linear algebra, far beyond my meager abilities to comprehend.

I suggest that perhaps your view of 'corporations', perhaps the market place in general, is a result of the complexity you view as overwhelming and confusing.

I offer a set of problems I have created in a fictional event in which I try to comprehend the workings of simple trade between a group of people.

I offer no answers here, mainly questions concerning how a people go about allocating available resources towards the best interests of all involved.

This 'group' of people are Native Americans living a long time ago and are transitioning from a hunter/gatherer society to an agrarian one, where they remain in one place instead of moving, as a group, when nearby resources are exhausted.

The 'people' number approximately a thousand, men women and children, young and old and function mostly as a patriarchal society with family elders making decisions and guiding each separate extended family.

The live according to the traditions and culture they have always lived by in terms of coexisting with each other and the land, trees, water, animals, resources they all share.

They have a leader, born of a family who have lead for many generations. The leader has a spiritual counselor, chosen wise elders, who represent hunters and builders and loggers and farmers, who advise him in all ways.

The 'leader' of the village directs and manages most things in the group, including a select few who act as guardians of the leader and the group in general.

The group is facing great changes, as all groups do when a society begins to mature and change.

Now there is a family group of stone tool makers who, through the passage of time, have become known as the 'best' makers of tools. They have secret access to the finest stones and flints and the 'family' keeps secret its knowledge of tool making in its own best interest.

As does the extended family of pottery makers, not sharing the source of high grade clay or the methods by which they mix ingredients and build and fire the kilns. They do so to keep the skill and expertise within the family, to benefit the family first of all.

Now, the 'trader' in the group, whose family also has evolved the skill and expertise in conducting trades between the families, also has his secrets of accounting and keeping track of trades and exchanges and his family has achieved a 'trusted' status in that his trades are just and fair and he does not divulge the secrets of the families that offer trade goods.

There is much, much more, but perhaps that is sufficient to set the scene for a possible conflict.

The 'leader' is pretty much all powerful, he could be a harsh dictator, enforcing his whims or pandering to one family or another or he could be a fair and just leader, trying to discover a means by which his people can live in peace and progress.

In a very loose sense, I ask you to view the 'leader' as government, the 'skilled families' as 'corporations' (in your terms), and the 'people', in your terms, as all the rest of the group.

Let me add another wrinkle: one family controls the source of common table salt, a commodity desired by all the people. They limit the amount they trade so that the 'salt' retains value and brings a high trade value.

The leader is advised by some, that he should force the families to divulge the secrets of their particular skill and share that 'knowledge' with all the people.

Of course, the 'families', wish to maintain their status by keeping their sources and skills in confidence.

What to you, as leader, do?

And why?



Amicus....

 

[DeeZire]

What do you, as leader, do? And why? Amicus....

Well, first I get in my hot tub and commiserate with my advisors. Then we devise a plan to allow everyone to vote on the questions you put forth. We come up with a plan to explain the ramifications of the vote by placing notices for the public to read, but the families controlling the commerce hire people to tear down our notices and replace them with similar notices that appear to be valid information - 'news' if you will - but this information is not news at all. It's propaganda, disguised as news. It presents the issues in a way that favors the interests of the rich families.

So now I have a dilemma - how do I get my message out to all the people, if the rich families are corrupting my message with their propaganda? I ask my advisors back to my hot tub to commiserate some more. One of my advisors brings a cute young intern who is attracted to powerful men. We hit it off. She asks if she can suck on my 'peace pipe'. I let her. Suddenly, my life is in a shambles. My secret liason with the intern is made public. I lose my leadership position and some other shmuck gets do decide the fate of the nation.

The new shmuck, a very personable fellow with a nice smile, invites all the rich families to his tent, and all the decisions that affect the people are now being made by the new shmuck and the rich families. The people want to be a part of the decision-making process, but their voice is ignored. They get disgusted with the shmuck and the rich families, perceiving the actions of their supposed 'leaders' to be motivated by greed, rather than the greater good of society. They complain about it around their campfires at night, or on the internet.

And here we are.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...nevermind...

 

[DeeZire]

Sighs...nevermind...

It's a technique I learned from you, Ami - answering a question without answering it. (I'd still like you to explain your stance on who's qualified to run for president - since your answer to that question was eloquent, but incomplete.)

On the question of the salt shortage, I would weigh the interests of the family controlling the salt against the interests of the greater good of society. If society was being hurt by the salt shortage, I would address it. If society was only being inconvenienced by it, I would let it work itself out.

Here, the question would be the definition of 'hurt' vs. 'inconvenienced'. If I had no firsthand knowledge of the actual people being hurt by the salt shortage, I might think there wasn't a problem. This is an example of where it's important for leaders to be in touch with their constituents. If the only people with access to leaders are the rich families, the leader is going to be basing all his decisions on incomplete information.

The thing I've noticed in these discussions is, the conservatives have an ideology that looks good on paper, but is totally irrelevent to the reality of people's lives. The liberals have an ideology that is relevent to people's lives, but incompatible with the power of 'market forces' and greed in a capatilistic society. I believe the solution lies somewhere in between.

Your question about the salt illustrates the complexities of the problem. What would you do? (You would have to define the level of inconvenience caused by the salt shortage, to put your solution into perspective.)

 

[amicus]

It's a technique I learned from you, Ami - answering a question without answering it. (I'd still like you to explain your stance on who's qualified to run for president - since your answer to that question was eloquent, but incomplete.)

On the question of the salt shortage, I would weigh the interests of the family controlling the salt against the interests of the greater good of society. If society was being hurt by the salt shortage, I would address it. If society was only being inconvenienced by it, I would let it work itself out.

Here, the question would be the definition of 'hurt' vs. 'inconvenienced'. If I had no firsthand knowledge of the actual people being hurt by the salt shortage, I might think there wasn't a problem. This is an example of where it's important for leaders to be in touch with their constituents. If the only people with access to leaders are the rich families, the leader is going to be basing all his decisions on incomplete information.

The thing I've noticed in these discussions is, the conservatives have an ideology that looks good on paper, but is totally irrelevent to the reality of people's lives. The liberals have an ideology that is relevent to people's lives, but incompatible with the power of 'market forces' and greed in a capatilistic society. I believe the solution lies somewhere in between.

Your question about the salt illustrates the complexities of the problem. What would you do? (You would have to define the level of inconvenience caused by the salt shortage, to put your solution into perspective.)

~~~

Perhaps you would enjoy the history of the 'salt trade', in the ancient world, the origin of the old saying, "worth his salt"...Roman soldiers (if memory serves) were actually paid their wages in salt as it was such a valuable commodity.

Early merchants, traders, business men, who earned their living by buying and selling items in demand, established trade routes to areas rich in a commodity and transferred them to regions lacking such commodities and in doing so, made a profit from their initial purchase of the salt or other commodity.

Of course, the greedy government rulers along the trade routes and at the borders, took a percentage of the salt(commodity), so they could build their pretty little castles and monuments to their own greatness. Sometimes those government would provide armed protection to the caravans and trade routes against bandits and thieves, but more often it was left to the trader and the businessman to foot the bill for providing protection.

The income provided to the governments, like the oil revenues from the Kingdom's in the middle east, did not benefit the people, but went to line the pockets of the non producing government parasites who mainly just counted other peoples monies.

I used 'salt' in my scenario on purpose as it is not a commodity, like windfall apples or hazel nuts, that one can just pick up from the ground.

Discovery of salt deposits in primitive cultures was usually made by observing grazing wild animals that would frequent natural outcroppings of salt deposits. Unless of course, one was near a salt laden ocean or sea when evaporation by the heat of the sun left ample salt layers.

As with all commodities of that sort, a level of quality exists among those who supply the trade goods. There are salt deposits of all kinds, some are harmful to health, some are contaminated and even poisonous or harmful to human life. Thus establishing an integrity of trade with a specific entity also becomes a value.

Return for the moment to the scenario I offered. Let us postulate that I am the salt trader and I do not wish to disclose the location of my salt deposit. I do not tell you any of the particulars, but perhaps my source is a distance away, requiring several days on foot travel (no horses among the people), and that the salt must be mined, cleaned, separated and transported, then packaged and traded for my profit on the venture to be realized.

Let me also suggest that my extended family is several dozens and that they all work in and survive on my salt business, plus, being a randy old goat, I am supporting three mates with several children each in different locations along the route to my salt mine.

I also hire burly young braves to defend my route of travel and to guard the mine and my stores of the commodity, so, I am rather a large economic factor already, providing jobs, income and a valuable commodity to the community.

I tell you to 'stick it where da sun don't shine', when you insist on knowing where my salt mine is.

If you continue to harass me, I will simply pack up and move to a more welcoming community.

What do you do and why?

Amicus...

 

[DeeZire]

What do you do and why? Amicus...

I run off to my music gig, pondering the question of what qualifications are required for a presidential candidate to meet your approval. (Perhaps some questions are best left unanswered?)

I'm sure your salt scenario is a trick question, so I have a trick answer. If the salt monopoly wasn't impacting society in a negative way, I wouldn't worry about it. However, if society voted to control that monopoly, and controlling that monopoly fell within the limits of the constitution governing that society, I would abide by the will of the people.

 

[amicus]

I run off to my music gig, pondering the question of what qualifications are required for a presidential candidate to meet your approval. (Perhaps some questions are best left unanswered?)

I'm sure your salt scenario is a trick question, so I have a trick answer. If the salt monopoly wasn't impacting society in a negative way, I wouldn't worry about it. However, if society voted to control that monopoly, and controlling that monopoly fell within the limits of the constitution governing that society, I would abide by the will of the people.

~~~

I suppose you might consider it a 'trick' question in a way. You suggested you would use force to remove an individuals rights for the greater good, I just wanted you to say it and justify it.

Aside from the constitutional requirements of citizenship and age, my preference in a candidate would be one who supported the constitution and the bill of rights, maintained separation of power, protected the sovreignty of the nation and individual rights and property. Kept religion out of politics and political affairs, and did not undertake to 'socialize' this republic.

Thus far only Senator Thompson meets that criteria, perhaps Ron Paul, but he is a nutcase.

Amicus...

 

[Seattle Zack]

I have to confess that I have not watched the "Tonight Show", since Johnny Carson left it; I cannot stand Jay Leno, David Letterman or "Nightline" when Ted Koppel was doing it, the broadcast channel late night shows. But that is a personal preference.

I did watch tonight for the Fred Thompson announcement and was reminded, by the low class pop culture introduction and the crude entertainment value, why I detest the program. Again, personal preference...

I also watched the Republican Presidential candidates debate this evening and the poorly constructed aftermath produced by Fox News.

The opening question of the debate unleashed an eight candidate broadside concerning Sen. Thompson's decision to announce after the debate, declining to participate in the New Hampshire debacle.

The opening statements and eventual announcement were staged questions and answers, as the media often does, with Leno fawning to Thompson in a predictable manner and the former Senator basically only answering two questions, that of the war in Iraq and the other, wider concept of the global war on tyranny.

Sen. Thompson justified the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as necessary, suggested Iran needed containment and supported the eminent necessity of global participation against the larger war on terrorism, by the free world at large. Also predictable.

After watching the candidates debates, both Republican and Democrat, I have arrived at a conclusion that the top three candidates from each party, Giuliani, McCain and Romney, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, are all six, intellectual lightweights without political substance.

I stand by my prediction of several months ago that Thompson and Gingrich will be the Republican ticket and that the Democrats will have to draft Giuliani and Romney as their ticket to even have a contest.

Mainline Republicans and Democrats are intellectually bankrupt with massive baggage burdens from an ideological base.

It should be an interesting five months ahead until the Primaries, and then another nail biting eight months after that until the General election in November '08.

Bon apetit'

Amicus...

I did watch the debate, and watched Ron Paul demolish the opposition. I don't keep track of favorite telepropter readers as you do, ami, so maybe you can clue me in on the Faux News inside line. Is Geraldo a favorite or a heel? It's like the WWF over there, and I recall Rivera's main talent as being able to take a chair to the face. When he's not looking for Al Capone's secret vault. Or giving away American troop positions. Is he Sergeant Slaughter or the Iron Sheik?

 

[amicus]

I did watch the debate, and watched Ron Paul demolish the opposition. I don't keep track of favorite telepropter readers as you do, ami, so maybe you can clue me in on the Faux News inside line. Is Geraldo a favorite or a heel? It's like the WWF over there, and I recall Rivera's main talent as being able to take a chair to the face. When he's not looking for Al Capone's secret vault. Or giving away American troop positions. Is he Sergeant Slaughter or the Iron Sheik?

~~~

No longer being in the inner circle to such privileged gossip, although I once was, Zack, I can only surmise that with the addition of Geraldo, Allen Colmes and Greta Van Susteran(sp), that Fox News moguls have decided to add a dash of sensationalism, socialism and women's issues to the mix of 'fair and balanced', I find it disgusting, personally, but then, thas me.

Amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

Oh, so government is not supposed to cover any women's issues? Leave them all out of the government?

 

[amicus]

Oh, so government is not supposed to cover any women's issues? Leave them all out of the government?

~~~


Lookin' to pick a fight are ye? First of all it is News, not government of which I speak, Fox News, in particular. Secondly, it is not really women's issues, but the soap opera'ish concentration on the Anna Nicole, Lindsey Lohan, four year old girl in Portugal, lost Aruba tourist that fills the Van Susteran hour almost every night that panders to the feminine psyche considering movie mags at the checkout stand, that sort of thing...but then...you know that...


amicus...