I apologize for my continued impatience with people who continue to regard the upcoming election as an actual contest. Why, I ask, pay attention to the words of candidates standing for elections in a system that has produced stolen elections consistently since 2000? How does that make sense?
For people who may have missed the evidence that election fraud decided national elections since 2000 (including the hollow "win" for anti-Bush regime voters in 2006) I recommend Michael Collins' column on Scoop, Independent News "Election Fraud & Tyranny." It reviews Mark
Intellectually, I am not a big fan of representative electoral systems, but the next step toward regaining control of our nation will need to be through imposition of a reliable system of elections. Merely requiring paper ballots and hand-counting would make it much more difficult to steal elections, but before that we are going to have to get big money out of the election process. That first step remains a head scratcher.
For instance, mass media, privately owned by folks with incentives to manipulate the electoral process, effectively short circuits the democratic
As long as our minds are considered the private property of those with the money and incentive to construct false realities using mass media for their private benefit, elections have no meaning.
Concepts of freedom and liberty, similarly, have no tangible reality without access to an accurate understanding of events.
process. This process is most pornographically exhibited by the Berlusconi government in Italy, but is recapitulated widely across the "Free Democratic World."
As long as our minds are considered the private property of those with the money and incentive to construct false realities using mass media for their private benefit, elections have no meaning. Concepts of freedom and liberty, similarly, have no tangible reality without access to an accurate understanding of events.
In the final analysis the problem is that, as it always is in monetary economies, virtually all the money has ended up in the hands of a very few morally depraved compulsive gamblers, thugs and criminals.
Herb Ruhs, MD
Well, I understand that perspective and you state it well, but I'm still maintaining that Barack Obama is worth the trouble of voting for. Or more emphatically, John McCain is worth the trouble of voting against.
The system sucks, the count will be rigged again, and if freedom or liberty were available options Obama would have been eliminated in the first round. On the Constitution, on simple integrity, he's smelly like a dog fart, and nobody wants to inhale dog farts ...
But the godawful election system won't be fixed by November, Doc, so we're stuck choosing between smelly dog farts and inhaling radioactive waste. That's the Obama-McCain choice. Since I have to breathe, I'm developing a taste for dog farts. Use your imagination, and it smells a little like lilacs.
Helen & Harry
What about Cynthia or Ralph?
I admit I am drawn between two candidates, but I am a sucker for anyone who tells the truth.
Herb Ruhs, MD
Vote for the candidate you prefer, of course. One vote among millions matters so little it rounds down to nothing, and of the candidates for President I'm aware of, the best by far is McKinney.
But the way the system is rigged, the best candidate can't possibly win. Sadly, the next President will be either Obama or McCain, and one of those would certainly be sadder for America than the other — and that sadder candidate has a built-in advantage of several points from election tampering and severe restrictions on who's allowed to vote. So if I was hallucinating that my opinion mattered to any perceptible number of voters, I'd urge folks to vote for the better candidate between those two.
