From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #160 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Sunday, July 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 160 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:28:12 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >but who decided that the system should be so? the "founding fathers" of course. >their basic desire was to keep the control of government in their hands, >therefore creating a government run by one social and economic class. these men >did not have faith in the common man's ability to run government, or even to >make intelligent choices, for that matter. true democracy was never intended to >be the outcome of the constitutional convention, rather a republic which >represents only one class' view: the white, rich majority, for example, the >white males who made up the constitutional convention and who wrote the >constitution only allowed white males to vote. this , in turn, lead to the >legislature being made up of white males, who, according to the setup of >government expressed in the original constitution of 1787, appointed the >senate. those people wishing to be senators would bribe the members of the >house, thereby filling the senate with not only white males, but wealthy, >corrupt ones. the founding fathers had no problem with a government based on >representation, because the representatives and the represented were one and >the same. The issue of democracy was never an intention of the constitutional >convention, and thus, was never truly implemented into our society, as >illustrated by our nation's current socio-economic-political situation > Whoa! I don't think that the founding fathers were intentionally as insensitive as the "white...rich...male...majority" are today. I really think that they tried to be fair in light of the "prevailing political winds" of their day. Yes, by today's (so-called) enlightened society the American Revolution was a terribly sexist affair, but this was a time before real suffrage for men, let alone women. Life then was much harder then you and I can imagine. I think they did a damn good job with the US Constitution because as soceity as a whole "adapts" (FLOABW) to the consensus of the beliefs of the vocal minorities, law changes. Albeit slow. I agree with you in that the socio-economic situation between classes is unequal and the politicians are in the pockets of the rich and influential. However, I firmly believe that our Constituion, particularly the Bill of Rights, ensures that the populace as a whole has the final say. (and indirectly, those who are brainwashed by crooked politicians on TV have their say too. If you don't like it you'll just have to make yourself louder to be heard). Matt (FLOABW) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:40:27 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! Miriam wrote: >Nah, I think you're just weeeeeeird. > Seems to be a common trait around here. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:45:24 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! Melanie wrote... >... The hard part is surviving within that system until such >time as one has sufficient sway to effect change, without losing one's >original purpose along the way. (The hard part is following that sentence! ) Loud and clear. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:43:29 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! "wild" Bill wrote... > >Sure, with the advancements in genetic engineering as of late, we should be >able to develop the ubermench in a couple of years. ;-) (j/k, please no >thread on genetic engineering) > *sound of size 12 boots on potential thread* I s'pose I meant that (your topic here) has been advancing faster than ever. Matt (TWO) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:38:47 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! oh, how true...but evn those who vote for good hair have the right to do so and I wouldn't change that. How could anyone be offended by their own evolving beliefs? (here I go, irrationally categorizing folks) But if your political views don't change constantly you must not be paying attention. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 19:34:01 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >well, the entire political system is dominated by greed and financial gain, and >the majority of politicians represnt only the needs of those who can help them >monetarily. under our current system, however, there no true representation in >america the people do not rule, as democracy, by definition, would dictate. >so few Americans vote in elections, because they rightfully believe that the >government does not work for them, rather, for the interests of the wealthy and >the powerful. american elections are dominated by big money and image, >politicians are the representatives of big businesses whose lobbyists buy their >votes for the best price. under the present system, us citizens do not have the >liberty to make a real democratic choice of political leadership. americans >vote in such small numbers not due to apathy, because they have become >disillusioned due to the corruption of the political process and are resigned >to the fact that the concerns of the public are never truly articulated by the >politicians. the act of voting itself is completely futile if business elites >decide who will run and who will win. the wealthy are capable of affecting >election outcomes, and subsequent legislation, with the money they spend to buy >politicians, while the poor recognize their causes as lost, and surrender >before the battle has even begun. Which, if I may echo myself, is why realy campaign finance reform will never happen no matter who happens to be running the show at the time. > >>Direct democracy is probably the only truly representative system -- the >>only one which represents each voice with 100% accuracy. But it comes >>with its own problems. If we commit to a representative democracy, we >>commit to its problems. One of these is that it does not represent all of >>its people clearly. When we take positions according to the beliefs of >>the majority, we exclude the minority. Can you suggest a way of >>simultaneously representing everyone and committing to representative >>democracy? I don't believe it's possible, but I'm open to suggestion. > >well, all i can do right now is quote chomsky: "as long as there is private >control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. you can't >even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of >industry, commerce, banking, everything... " > Now more then ever! Democracy *is* a joke, but it's the best joke in town. All you can do is try to stay ahead of the game...*stay ahead of the game and you win!!!!* Whoever has the most toys at the end of the game is still dead. :<( Matt ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #160 ********************************************