Government Lies

[Vicarious]

This is a reply to Buffy.

 

"There has to be oversight of this--as our current debate as to why the President should be allowed to do anything he sees fit without oversight based on certain phrases in the Constitution--or it becomes a mechanism to hide government malfeasance or corruption or other abuse of power."

 

Just to let you know, I can't understand this sentence.

[coberst]

Leadership:

 

If we look back in history we can see that national leadership was almost totally the province of the privileged until modern times when leadership was often chosen based upon merit.

 

In the last four presidential elections Americans have chosen Clinton for two terms on the bases of merit and Bush for two terms on the bases of privilege. Two elections were won by the boy from the wrong side of the tracks who displayed amazing merit. Two elections were won by the privileged son of privilege.

 

I think we can usefully examine these two leaders in an attempt to recognize the dangers to our nation by both types of leadership. In the case of Bush there is little need for examination because he is the incarnation of the weakness of leadership by an aristocracy of privilege. But the weakness of meritocracy may not be so obvious.

 

I think the major problem inherent in meritocracy is that the arrogance of privilege has been replaced by the arrogance of merit. Clinton was problematic for the nation because it appears that those who rise to the top because of merit have developed a sense of superiority even surpassing that of the aristocracy of privilege.

 

Elites by merit have the illusion that their success is solely on merit and it “strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognize so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot—the very definition of meritocratic success.”

 

Of course, we can find evidence of great leadership from both the privileged and the meritocracy. How can we recognize the disabling arrogance before we elect them rather than after?

 

Privilege or merit all politicians must lie because the people will not allow a politician success if he or she tells the truth.

 

Quotes from “The Revolt of the Elites” by Lasch.

[Abstruce]

Coberst

 

According to the forum rules you are not supposed to cut and past large amounts of text.

 

If you understand what you have quoted here, you know it doesn't make sense, the author seems to ramble on about two different classes of politician as if where that simple.

 

Bush and Clinton are both complicated individuals, I would not begin to surmise a one word description to describe either one of them.

 

Why do the citizens of this country elect a president without first having them complete an IQ test and posting the results publicly is beyond me.

 

George Bush is in not qualified to be the president of the US, or any other country for that matter. However he helps out all the comedians who make fun of him every day. So I can't say he is good for nothing.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Abstruce:

Why do the citizens of this country elect a president without first having them complete an IQ test and posting the results publicly is beyond me.

Ah, but that is exactly why I want a system and not a 'personality'. I WANT to be able to feel secure even if a complete idiot is elected president - a virtual certainty that is going to happen every 4 years when our country elects the next next 'American Icon'.

The same is true for the forty thieves (congress).

You know, the name of the thread should be a contradiction in terms. The fallacy is that it isn't.

[coberst]

Abstruce

 

“According to the forum rules you are not supposed to cut and past large amounts of text.”

 

By my count I have provided six lines of quoted material in a twenty nine line essay. I do not think this qualifies as being “large amounts of texts”.

 

Rules are designed generally to serve a useful purpose and this purpose needs to be understood if we are not to use rules in a blind and unthinking manner.

 

Often people use quotes from authoritative sources to give some credibility to something unique that they are writing about; my quotes in this short essay serves this purpose.

 

I think that if you were to read my post with some attention you would better understand it and could make a more cogent response.

[Lord Hakk]

Who couldn't handle the truth? why would society break down because of the truth? That would only happen if people weren't use to the truth. which we aren't. So we couldn't handle the truth if it was given to us now. But if it was given to us from the very start then we could live with it. now say they gave us the truth in parts, like I sometimes find out stuff about what the government is doing (from the internet and stuff) piece by piece and I am not surprised, like for example, the government sends people on top secret missions into other countries, and if the people die, their bodies are sent back to the U.S and are planted in training accidents and stuff like that. Another example is that the government is testing new equipment in Iraq. we all know that , but what we don't know is that they tested a microwave weapon agents the Iraqy forces. Now most of you know that microwaves are a fourm of radiation, :) right?So you tell me if that is inhuman, which I think it is.:(

[Abstruce]

I think that if you were to read my post with some attention you would better understand it and could make a more cogent response.

 

Coberst

 

You are correct, I took the entire post as a quote.

 

The post was so much on topic I took it as an entire quote.

 

My fault, I would like to call a mulligan if I may.

 

Sorry.

[Abstruce]

Abstruce:Ah, but that is exactly why I want a system and not a 'personality'. I WANT to be able to feel secure even if a complete idiot is elected president - a virtual certainty that is going to happen every 4 years when our country elects the next next 'American Icon'.

The same is true for the forty thieves (congress)..

 

Do you think it would be a good idea to experiment with a internet based political lobbying group to gather a public vote on the issues?

 

What do you believe could work to improve the system?

 

You know, the name of the thread should be a contradiction in terms. The fallacy is that it isn't.

 

Are you saying the government discloses the truth?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Abstruce:

Do you think it would be a good idea to experiment with a internet based political lobbying group to gather a public vote on the issues?

No I don't. That's granting the status quo as valid and it's not. It's getting a bigger gang. I don't want gang warfare, which is what our system of 'democracy' is today. Gather support for your position and run with it. That's not right. I want a system that operates with very specific limitations and pure democracy is just another form of tyranny.

What do you believe could work to improve the system?

Limit the function of government and get it out of the economy. It's the link with the economy that makes 'special interest groups' the driving force in politics today. Officials simply parlay favor for power and money.

[Barry Scott]

If the Government has nothing to hide, why lie in the first place

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Why do they lie now? To cover their tracks, to obfuscate the issues, to get us to focus on vapor in order to do something for one of their special interests. There is hope (or perhaps I'm projecting). We are becoming more aware of the ways of 'spin', i.e. lying to set up future action or cover for past frauds.

"The Daily Show" is a good case in point. Humorously showing how the current administration actively conjures up bullshit (including techniques) is gaining more and more audience worldwide.

Truth is a value and perhaps the most important commodity. Laughing helps too.