Utopian States: Loves happy people

From the 2008 Draft Al Gore Campaign site:

Publicly, we remain dormant, but we are carefully watching the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. As of this writing, Obama is ahead in delegates, but both candidates continue to split the available delegates in such a way that neither may have enough to be nominated on the first ballot at the convention in August. The next (and last) major state as far as delegates go is Pennsylvania. Depending on what happens there in April, we may decide that it’s time to swing into action again.

If Clinton and Obama continue to do damage to each other’s campaigns, if they continue to split the delegates, if it appears that the Democratic Party will be divided rather than united going into the convention, it may become evident that the party needs someone who can unite the Democrats, and most importantly, someone who can beat John McCain in November. To our way of thinking, the obvious someone is Al Gore.

We’re not the only ones entertaining this notion.

See the site by clicking on this link: The 2008 Draft Al Gore Campaign

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a LAND that’s free,
Let us all be grateful for a LAND so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Bless America,
LAND that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Ya’ll note that it says LAND that I love. It says nothing about government.

The following quote is from Wikipedia. The discussed information can also be found in more original sources throughout the net.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.[1]

This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of “talking points,” which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.

The technique is described in a saying, often attributed to Lenin, as “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”, [2] although the user may not be intentionally promoting a lie and may just believe an illogical or faulty proposition.

Political parties use this fallacy to redefine words such as Liberal and Conservative. They repeat their definition so often that people think their redefinition is true.

The association of the redefined word is made with the opposing party and the opposing candidate. This clusters all candidates together not only as the same, but of having the characteristics of the altered definition.

More later. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I will follow this post with many other examples of how Americans are brainwashed and provide further clarification.

The following use of the words conservative and liberal refers to the previously given definitions for those words. Both major political parties are thought to be an eclectic mix of liberal, conservative, dysfunctional and punishing ideas.

Today, a conservative approach to building Utopia is probably necessary because people are afraid of sudden changes. People fear change will result in expanded government spending and regulation. With our government debt over 9 trillion dollars, who can blame them?

A conservative approach to building Utopia:

1.) Identify national problems.
2.) Fix each problem without incurring further expense.

The suppositions are:

1.) Reducing defects leads to perfection.
2.) Utopia is perfection.

As an example of how this approach worked, consider the evolution of the television. In 1950, televisions had no transistors. Vacuum tubes were the technology of that era. The televisions were hand wired. The wiring on the bottom looked like a dish of spaghetti. The printed circuit board was developed. This replaced the wiring. The televisions became more reliable and cheaper to make. The cost reductions and reliability improvements were passed on to the consumer. Transistors and IC’s were integrated over the years to further improve reliability and cost.

Understand that this approach was possible because of the free market and capitalism. Understand too, that government is currently a monopoly.

If the conservative approach worked for American industry, then it should also work for the American government.

The problems are plausibly identified by:

1) Asking the people what is wrong in their lives.
2) Asking people what is wrong with the laws.
3) Asking the people what is wrong with government programs.
4) Asking the government employees what improvements need to be made.
5) Asking the elected what is wrong with America.

Note that #1-4 are not currently used. When has government asked you about your problems in government? Where is the on-line database of the answers/data?

The political parties send you questionnaires.. However these questionnaires are designed to get your contributions. They are not worded fairly, nor are they complete. Dissect one of these political questionnaires in a class on logical fallacies and the whole class laughs at the broken logic. One to Four above are not currently done. One to Four above ALL need to be done to produce better (more Utopian) government.

The problems should be fixed by:

1.) Research.
2.) Communication.
3.) Planning.
4.) Study of cost effectiveness.
5.) Study of what is fair and just.
6.) Study of all options.
7.) The application of policy that favors all people.

Currently, problems seemed to be resolved by a determination of how many votes will be gained.

Washington must improve if America is to improve.

Trade is defined as giving in exchange for another commodity. Trade is barter; making an exchange. Trade means to engage in frequent buying and selling of (as stocks or commodities).

Free is defined as not obstructed, restricted, or impeded.

Free trade is defined as not subject to government regulation; not hampered or restricted in its normal operation; having no government restrictions; Free trade is a two way process. Free trade, in order to be optimal, requires that both trading partners buy and sell in equal amounts.

People used to think Salem Massachusetts was a country because there were so many ships from Salem in their ports. Tariffs were the primary tax of 19th century America when Ships from Salem Massachusetts did as much trade as entire countries. Perhaps if corporate taxes were considered tariffs on American products, politicians and economists wouldn’t loath the concept of an equal tariff on foreign products. Tariffs may equalize trade, thus increasing the total amount of the trade.

Would you rather buy a Toyota made in the USA for $25,000 while earning $50,000 a year, or be unemployed and buy a Toyota made in China for $20,000? Worse yet, be labeled by a callous government as a person who has “dropped out of the labor force” when your unemployment compensation ends. Tariffs protect the worker as much as they maximize and protect free trade.

US Industry pays more for employee benefits than some nations pay for employee salaries. How can trade between nations be equal and optimal under these conditions? Tariffs must be introduced to increase the trade. Tariffs protect and optimize free trade.

Government regulations tilt the playing field by giving one side the edge over the other. Tariffs can increase free trade (the total two way trade) by offsetting one government’s distortion of the trade markets.

H. Ross Perot called Free trade a “Giant Sucking Sound” that would suck jobs out of the USA.

Arguably, the present free trade policies are communistic to the extent that they facilitate suppression and equalization of wages and prices by government. Isn’t communism defined as equality of wages and living conditions? The Czars and CEOs, of course, will still have large salaries in a communist style system. “Free Trade” has suppressed total American manufacturing wages more than all other factors combined.

Justification for calling present Free Trade Policies Communistic proceeds from definitions such as the Wikipedia definitions for the words reactionary and communism:

In Marxist terminology, reactionary is generally used with a pejorative meaning to refer to people whose ideas might appear pro-working class but in essence contain elements of feudalism, capitalism, nationalism, fascism, or other ruling class characteristics.

Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire, coined in the early 19th century. It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French Revolution. “In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries.”[2]

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. [1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.

The present Free Trade Policies are further right than conservatism. They are reactionary in that they promote extreme wealth simultaneously with extremely harsh conditions for the working class and those that cannot find work. The resulting society being similar to that of both communist and precommunistic Russia.

In his recent memoir, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”

More on War for Oil

This month, an exhaustive Pentagon-sponsored review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured during the 2003 U.S. invasion found no evidence that Saddam’s regime had any operational links with the al Qaida terrorist network.

Yahoo Report

Bush: “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” –interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

Bush: “I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” –as quoted in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War

Bush: “F*ck Saddam. We’re taking him out.” –to three U.S. senators in March 2002, one year before the Iraq invasion, as quoted by Time magazine

Definitions of Words for a Presidential Campaign

In 2005, as Siegelman was preparing his 2006 campaign, he was indicted for accepting a bribe – specifically appointing the businessman Richard Scrushy to a state hospital board in exchange for a contribution to a campaign for a state lottery to fund education. This seems suspicious to me, because Siegelman did not profit personally from that exchange, he didn’t pocket any money for himself – so I don’t see how that is a bribe. Elected officials across the country appoint people who contribute to their political campaigns without facing criminal charges.

From www.bestandworst.com

Law enforcement officials said the governor — the millionaire heir to a New York real estate fortune — had hired prostitutes several times before and had spent tens of thousands of dollars, and perhaps as much as $80,000, on the high-priced escort service Emperors Club VIP, whose women charge as much as $5,500 an hour.

From Yahoo News

Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr. (born March 31, 1948) is the former forty-fifth Vice President of the United States, who served from 1993 to 2001 under President Bill Clinton. Gore also served in the U. S. House of Representatives (1977–85) and the U. S. Senate (1985–93), representing Tennessee. Gore was the Democratic nominee for president in the 2000 election, ultimately losing to the Republican candidate George W. Bush in spite of winning the popular vote. A legal controversy over the Florida election recount was eventually settled in favor of Bush by the Supreme Court.[1][2]

A prominent environmental activist, Gore was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (together with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for the “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”[3] He also starred in the Academy Award – winning documentary on the topic of global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. In 2007, Gore helped to organize the July 7 benefit concert for global warming, Live Earth.

From Al Gore – Wikipedia