144000 Californians pay 50% of income tax revenue

[Phil Ayesho]

What is wrong with demonizing the rich is the same thing that is wrong with demonizing nazi's... It implies that they are LESS than you... that they are flawed in some fashion that explains their evil actions and implies that whatever group you belong to does not have those flaws.

It is wrong to call Hitler a monster... because it leaves you blind to the fact that almost ANY human being, given total power, would appear equally monstrous.
Whatever biases and prejudices, whatever neuroses or petty hatreds any of us might harbor, given free rein and entirely unchecked, would result in excess and destruction.

Hitler was 'HUMAN' and that SHOULD be a warning to us that NO ONE can be trusted with power... that we must keep an eagle eye on every person who wields influence and authority.


It is wrong to demonize the rich because they are just like anyone else... dehumanizing them is something we do to make us feel better about ourselves...
And that just sets us up to imagine that OUR ethics, OUR positions and OUR beliefs are Better.

What makes the Conservatives such juiceless shits as human beings is their total CERTAINTY that they are better than other people, that their ideals are without flaw, and that anyone who disagrees is 'evil'.

That is the ground in which grows their total disregard for anyone else...

Its wrong to demonize the rich, or any other group, simply because it leads you into the realm of moral certainty.

 

[Bodaddio]

Phil, you never answered my question:

So then, why are all of our lawmakers including the President rich? If this is the case also, who's best interest do they have in mind? Will they have to play by the same rules we are going to be forced to play by?

We vote them in, then expect them to have OUR best interest in mind.
Oh, and Bill Gates pretty much stole the program. Wasn't Xerox involved in there somewhere also?

Cheers

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I did answer it... I pointed out that I do not think anyone gets into a position of power without being willing to compromise their ethics.
Especially now that lobbying with dollars has been classified as "speech" by the Supreme Court... and now that it take millions of dollars to mount even a local campaign for congress.


And the lever we have on the politicians is our vote. No amount of money will re-elect a person the voters decide they have had it with...
this is why Party centric politics is something every thinking american should abandon.

They want to stay in power... it would just be a mental shift for folks to stop voting for the name they are familiar with, or the party they are familiar with, and take the opposite tack... to make voting AGAINST the incumbent the default position...
i.e. the only guys who get re-elected are the ones who actually, verifiably DO something for you.

You want a more ethical congress? Then it has to be a naive congress... Experience in the Senate and House is NOT good for us.... it just increases the liklihood that they have figured out some scam...cut some deals... on the take.

Put all newbies in every year so that no one can have the time to figure how to rig the system.


As to Bill- no, he did not steal it... he bought it outright from the guy who wrote it for practically nothing. The ethical thing would have been to bring the guy on, or offer the guy stock...

What you are thinking of regarding Xerox is the Mouse/graphical interface developed by researchers in the PARC labs.

And that was not actually stolen, Jobs was invited to come in and look at the idea after Xerox determined that they were not going to use the technology and not even going to field a personal computer... the original developer at PARC assisted Apple in implementing the GUI.