John,
I totally agree. People are not helpless. My point is they will get little
or no relief from the empty shrine of party politics. People uniting for
Peace, equality and liberty can shake heaven and earth. People uniting to
get their party's leader elected will change the type of corruption and the
direction of the flow of ill gotten gains, i.e. from the backers of the
Democratic Party to the backers of the Republican Party. Rake the muck this
way or rake the muck that way. Muck is muck.

--------------------

I have to agree with this, Yousef.  However, the political system has
experts that are good at the divide and conquer game, keeping the
people unable to unite properly by keeping the truth hidden.

--------------------

Remember the Golden Rule: "He with the Gold makes the Rules." Political
parties do not represent the people that vote for them they represent the
people that pay for them. This is why politicians only take "safe" stands.
The desire to rule corrupts the very nature of those that seek power. (When
as in the case of the current regime we get an idealogue in power they are
usually so narrow-minded that comprimise does not occur to them. I guess you
have to admire their stand but I don't envy the receipients of theit
policy.)

---------------------

I have to say that only the people who do not want the office should
be allowed to have it.  The details on how to make that happen are
the bug in that program.

---------------------

As for Brice's comment; as I said it's a red herring. History shows that
corruption occurs much more easily in a small arena than it does in the
larger one. Power was taken from the states because the states refused to
exercise the power they had for the good of the people. Adequate education
was not provided, health care was unavailable and basic freedoms were denied
by the states to those that could not grease the wheels of the carriage of
state. Jim Crow laws were perfectly acceptable to the locals in the south.
Sometimes it takes a much larger perspective to see things clearly.

Pray for Peace,
Yosef

---------------------

Nope.  History shows that corruption is more visible in a small arena
than a large one.  This give the -appearance- that it occurs more easily.
I will agree halfway on this, in that it is probably harder to push
through a corrupt agenda through a large organization, but the rewards
are geometrically greater.  And a small arena (read geographically limited)
is easier to avoid when a person gets fed up.  Just vote with your feet.
the issue of slavery made this problematic, but I think slavery was going
to die out if it was left alone, as there were a number of influential
southerners who were looking for a way to end slavery.  It would have been
much better for it to have died out due to popular opinion in the south,
than using the war between the states to do it.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *