How can true democracy exist?

It needs basic requirements, most of which we do not have any longer, or never did.

The public needs to be informed from all quarters. Well these days, we hardly hear anything on the poor, the disadvantaged, environmental impacts of economic decisions. Mostly subdued by corporate interest. A good part of the damage was Ronald Reagan’s, destruction of the fairness doctrine.

Votes need to be counted under transparent conditions. Now without even paper trails, impossible to prove non-manipulation. This damage to democracy has been perpetrated by conservative status quo interest.

We do not even have a right to vote! It is a “privilege”, thus deniable by whomsoever privilege rules. This opens the door to mostly conservative interest to deprive voters a ballot.

A true democracy should minimally require a majority to elect any representative or president. It is unlikely but conceivable now that we could elect a president with only 40% of the vote. What kind of union is that? who will own it?

Without any fairness to the actual ability to reach the public, money has become the power behind votes and ideas.

In the end, an electoral college elects the president. Time for us to graduate to a real democracy.

If we want to talk about freedom. Under the lack of democratic tradition evolving here, we may not have much time left.

We have now a fake democracy.



Being involved with family violence control puts me in an odd situation.

I have avoided physical fighting my whole life. Childhood became the most significant influence on this. My father had told me, and I took it as holy law, that you as a guy, do not strike women. I cannot say that my older sisters and I did not have shoving matches, but for me that would have been self defense. Our family dynamics was heavy on the mental sparing which can seem actually more devastating.

The physical violence in our house was later done, after my mothers death, by a step mother-guardian. She would not hesitate to hit, throw objects and threaten with knives. She sent my father to the hospital with a big gash across his forehead. I slept with the largest kitchen knife under my pillow as a self defense plan for a knife attack while I was asleep. She had hit me in the face while I was asleep, then locked me out in the snow in my pajamas. My father committed suicide not long after that.

Earlier I had incidences when someone seemed to be threatening my life as a freshman high school. I was literally about 100 lbs. and someone morbidly obese around 500 lbs, held me under water to near drowning during pool time in a crowded pool. He had done this more than once. It became so serious to me (swallowing-inhaling watter) that I thought I would have to take matters into my own hands. One more time, and I was going to put him in a headlock with my legs around his neck and hold him under until it meant something. I was a totally inhibited kid and did not trust authority to do anything but blame the victim. So I had to weigh in my mind, possibly causing someones death and being called and treated as a murderer.

As it turned out, he never did that again. But I was sure it would have been me to blame and I would have felt I had no options in my own self defense. No one seemed to notice him doing this during the pool commotion, so I believed no one would accept my story. It just never came through to experience. In physical confrontations during boyhood, I found I had to keep the potential for rage out of me, especially since I had no doubt that I would take down someone twice my size. It took someone quite a bit larger and older to overcome me. I was afraid of my rage and how if unleashed it would seem out of my control.

(As evidence that I am not just delusional about this strength proclamation. When it rained a lot during physical education, outdoor activities were called off and we were put into the gym, we freshmen and the sophomores, to have a thing called “bombardment”. This is where there are two sides chosen, a line across the middle of the gym, where the two sides throw rubber balls a little smaller than a soccer ball at each other. Out of about 150 students divided in two, little me was one of the last picked, last or second to last.

Well the first game I discovered that being in the lower 10% in size had me a bit afraid, so I hung back as many did. All it took was the guy next to you ducking and a ball out of nowhere taking you out, while leaving a big red mark somewhere. I decided to risk all and take it to the line next game.

You could see most of what was being thrown up front. I found out I could catch any-ones ball thrown at me, but no-one could hold onto mine. I was also very accurate. I won that game. The last guy standing. I was picked second of all players next game. The team first picking, picked his seeming best friend first, so I was first on the other team picked. The next game was the last. It oddly ended up being me the last standing on my team, and a very out of shape guy hiding and dodging in the corner on the other side when the period ran out. I could no longer throw fast enough to eliminate time for him to move. That is how little old me was as a skinny five feet two.)


What I just said I cannot say to someone involved in family violence. As far as physical violence goes, I do not hit women. I have told ones who gave me any actual physical provocation that, “If you do that again, we are over!” I do not tolerate fighting, especially in the home relationships. I try to avoid physical confrontations with anyone. Now that I am a “senior citizen” I find you are not seen as a threat overall, or there is a kind of automatic respect. Most of that sense of being on guard is much diminished now. I take peace as my way and it path is most often open.

I have found that emotional abuse has prove a bit more difficult to not take part in, compared to a sense of law that one just never does such a thing. I grew up that way, making fun of someones mistake or being ridiculed. It is then a model of behavior I have had to contain and reverse. To do that requires a will and an understanding of the Golden Rule or Categorical Imperative. I need to establish the sense that not only does “what goes around comes around.”, but it is already damaging my life. Abusing others in any way is profoundly self abuse.

I need to see (learn to recognize) when I am treating another like I would not wish to be treated, and immediately review what my self respect or control problem really is. We are often given the information from another that we are on some kind of attack and they becoming defensive, or initiating their own retaliations.

Still, when expressing guidance to someone, it will often fall flat if it is preached or describes as something I am so above, and can’t understand how someone could do such a thing. That fits as a key with very few dysfunctional programs. I have to speak out of and through my own life, the love in your heart has to be in it, to be a gift expected to have a chance at being received.


In some ways I have described political tactics and ways of manipulation. All manipulation is in some way an abuse of the truth. Its vibrational disturbance will not go unnoticed, except perhaps, by like minded dysfunction. The same situations and rationalizations that come to effect home life are used in the greater life of our world. Even if everyone does it, doesn’t make it right.

We will find manipulative arguments covered if various guises meant to hide their intention, and instead, be represented as your own interest. Fear and insecurity are great hiding places for manipulative interest. Optimistic vision can also be used as a trick to catch someones interest, then later prove to have been a ruse. We need to be both critically minded on the one hand, and have our heart held out open in the other. True adults can do this.

The upcoming election seems to be being based on fear and insecurity vs. hope and optimism, both of these being held as paramount in differing ways by the candidates. I am not saying that we are not justified in having these inclinations. What I am encouraging is the “true believers” and the doubtful to have their wits about them. As citizens and voters, it is up to us to determine the fact from fiction, the hidden agendas from the promises of safety and security. For power will seek to inject its corruptions into all areas of life if let be.

We each are freedom, love, and truths best and last hopes. Better to stand with understanding under their tall light, than the ignorance that festers in the shadows of misunderstanding.

I’M STILL DECIDING. Give me a while!



We have the population poised for mind-blank. Fill in the synaptic connections.

We will forget who got us into the mess we are in as a nation. Fear will turn this mushy swishy middle voter, into fallen over sure, wishing once upon a fear.

Unfair. May I repeat, unfair and out of context story-lines will be created. Good people will seem sinister, the swishy swashy middle fence sitters will tumble to the side spewing the most vile and veiled innuendo. Its weight pulling them as if by cause of reason.

It happens every time!

Works like a charm!

“Did you hear who so and so really is? Shocking!”

They suggested we were tired of the mud, the out of context and ground up truth made into voodoo dolls, but the needles stick into the straw every time!

Sure the confident “polar opposites” may be unswayed by the manure spreader, rightly or wrongly. It is that mind-crunched middle, musing over who knows what; a certain word or concept focus groups have found to be a sword, a hammer, a bullet, who knows. They will make up that confused and ambivalent mind of theirs, or sit out until someone tells them what to think, a friend or family member? Possibly a smiling and sincere door knocker, a promise made to someone over the phone? They do this stuff for a reason!

Then the once confused will feel the power. Their vote will become pointed, like a weather vane into the breeze of localized mind controlled zeitgeist.

With a heart of wind and metal, they will become; the decider. They may receive a little sticker after that, saying, “I VOTED“, as if that actually meant something to be proud of in their instance.

Then they will return to their field with outstretched arms and funny hat; hay sticking out from their cuffs, hoping against hope, to keep the thoughts from landing in the field and consuming all of their confusion. In this mission they will, until next harvest season, or a fall burn-off, be quite successful.



I find many sources of inspiration from my blog tag surfing. I sometimes respond to the ones I agree with, or find a new and useful perspective or experience description in. I mostly write of the ones in which I disagree, since that is where the issues in contention with my viewpoint are. I do not usually link to them if they are a persons opinion, not wishing to turn communication into a bunch of you said and I said but neither listen with an ear or give in an inch. I also feel that trading often quick dismissive commentary hardly helps understanding to move along. If someone is actively curious, I trust them to be looking for ideas on their own.

Political discourse is often filled with the false premise, it often dependent on out of context “truths” or “facts” in the ad-hominem offensive attack. These sorts of false premises, false dichotomies and other mechanisms for hiding bias under alleged reason, is the norm for much political antagonism. It is easy to dismiss ones opponents when their machinations are so evident to you. Ones own? Not so much.

I am right after all. If that is my perspective, I am set up to automatically devalue countervailing ideas. That may be good for that us against them mentality or righteousness, but not so good for discerning actual reality, since I then exclude proper consideration of contradictory evidence. I think it is often in this “fair” consideration, where I can employ diversionary notions to buttress my own view, without honestly opening my heart and mind to another’s perspective.


Politics is all about representing the attachments to ones identity as it applies to personal and civic life. I am identified with my side for some reason. These reasons can be solid and upfront, but are somewhat more likely mushy and attached to parents or ones place in life and with whom one associates or admires in the culture. These can be dubious since they introduce emotional notions that can have even more power than fact or proved theory, yet stand as an apparent ground on which my identity is firmly rooted. Many political moves are meant to shift this sand of emotional foundation, pouring water at its footings to sink it or slide your position more towards one area. This is then propaganda or other misdirection administered as if for ones own good.

Most political adds are made of this material, false premises creating whole scenarios that have little merit in true reason but are meant to turn those insecurities of ours into solid products, be they merchandise or votes. If these greatly influence your choices, you are probably quite uniformed.


My point of view on a rationalization scenario caught in my tag surfing:

First was one I read on my post, a scenario of an Obama presidency. It was predicated on his “Christ” (my addition) like promise to talk with our enemies. The quite long and involved with foreign relations gone bad scenario that ensued, was all based on the false assumption that since you (Obama) said you were going to meet with your enemies, you thus were going to ignore your friends. (On what grounds this conclusion?) Then it went on with the bad consequences of the Obama presidency. Ending with a quick quip about crushing the military’s moral by pulling out just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well, there was another false premise; that might guarantees right. It has in the Iraq case, as many military and intelligence assessments have suggested, led to an empowering of our adversaries in the region mentioned in the post, especially since after the use of might, much wrong assumption and expectations were relied on as if they were facts. On a war begun with much falseness, what exactly is victory now?

I could equally posit a scenario, that since the manipulated elections of 2000 and 2004, the USA has been violated from within, and so invited the ensuing disasters, by betraying its inherent trust in truthfulness of its institutions. That the military itself, was betrayed by ideology and its host of false assumptions, tucked under highly questionable “facts” rendered out of bounds for democracies fourth estate. So called patriotic unquestionable mandates were employed and submitted to, fomenting authoritarian march in line cult-think. Of course. Exactly what we have always fought for?

I could say that yes, the first Clinton administration was inept enough on defense, especially on small groups that could cause major harm, but that the administration that replaced it, finished the pulling down of the American public trust around our ankles. Doing the opposite of whatever liberals say to do philosophy, seemed to help to open the doors to 9-11 further than before. In all likelihood, what we experienced was what leadership is like that has been propped up and bailed out by power interest all their lives, and what that kind of arrogant yet naive dubious character traits trickle down from their model into government. That, then, leading to the countless scandals and deceptions the American public, including the military, has had to endure.

Personally, I would put more trust in naive good intentions, in a trust for hope and change, than the kind of power corruption classes that have come to dominate and perpetuate a dominator/subservient psychology that thrives off of conflict at home and in the world. We are now seemingly wed to imperialist ambitions of world domination. These now codified by rationalizations into lifestyle, our way of life, our freedoms, or even vital national interest. Exactly whose interest are they in?

How seductive it is to think you can force others to think some other way, as a quick fix to deep systemic world inequalities, and resource depletion with possibly catastrophic environmental pollution? While our leaders come to double talk morals and behavior to the world as if omniscient and beyond rational questioning, the greatest issues are being ignored for these ego challenged identity games.

Enough said on how might guarantees true results as promised.


This morning there was an interview on Democracy Now, where two representatives, one of Obama and one of Clinton, discussed their view of the realities of last nights primary. Two narratives seem to be in place; one where Obama’s string of victories is broken, indicating some kind of sea change. The other that he essentially has the delegates rapped up, and did very well since just two or so weeks ago Clinton was supposed to trounce him in Texas. (I am now running my impressions on how the conversation seemed to be and not exact statements.)

One false premise is about the “momentum” illusion that at times takes hold as a fact, even though it may be a condition of many variables, variables that would not always hold steady down the line, like historical state tendencies. But this notion becomes good emotional political fodder once unstoppable presumed momentum is broken. We can declare everything has changed, when something has changed, but what that is may be simply the states traditional tendencies held somewhat. Media interest certainly want the attention a fight brings to their advertisers, so pundits will declare someones sky is possibly falling. There can be this silent bias to a see-saw session being as long as possible.

The premise that two people from the same party, one who wins and the other loses the state, translates directly to the other party standing in as the winner or loser is how sound? What kind of futuristic wishy washy math is that? “I’d vote for the woman, but not the guy in my party?” Or the other way around? Is that the reasoning we are now appealing to?

Both sides argued their viewpoints in talking point purity, until Amy Goodman asked a simple question at the finish about what mistakes the candidates had made along the way. The Obama rep, seemed to give an honest inward looking probe of a possible misstep and ended it on that. The Clinton rep., who has a book out on how women take over the reign’s of power or something like that. (I’m trying to leave the exactness (quotes and such) out of my point as to not smudge my subjective impression of a skewed answer.) This Clinton rep. took advantage of her place in the situation, opportunistically.


The Clinton woman, and author, went on to say the public was not seeing Clinton’s human side (the public or medias fault?), more or less, then went on, being the last speaker, to finish on Clinton’s strong points and “betterness”.

Well I thought; “This response did not truly answer the question about the candidates mistake, but instead, went on to finish on all her presumed strengths. This is an opportunistic political taking advantage of the situation of being a last presenter and the opponent getting no fair time to rebut what was intended as an introspective point on humility and campaign experience “learned.” A small issue of personalities and opportunistic placement perhaps, but quite telling of logic and audience attention to detail nevertheless.


Politics? Yes. But the other guy did no such thing as I recall. It was a rare chance for unscripted introspection, and was initiated as such. Not the same old thing. This troubles me some about the Clinton and McCain campaigns morphing into we rule by the same old thing so successful in propaganda campaigns these last several years. It is how business is done, experience with the same old thing. Fear based “toughness” more important than pursuing whole understanding? As a citizen of the USA, I am really tired of being treated like an idiot.

Well, from my own biased point of view a generalization from above; if this is how woman are to gain authority and responsibilities in governing more, that example was not one I would endorse. Out doing what has been the game of men at their own sophistry tricks, seems not the kind of power I want more of. I would hope that from my side of the political spectrum, we would not mimic the misleading premises so apparently effective on the other side’s followers. Otherwise, as I started in this piece, we will not need open our hearts or minds, cause we will be always certain of the others deceptive characteristics, and blinded to our own.