Your Manifesto

dclary · Nov 19, 2006

Hey guys,

I'm kinda tired and bored with all the political one-upsmanship (November blues, lol).

Here's an exercise.

If you were running for office, what would your platform be?

Rules:

No attacks in your platform, unless you are attacking an abstract like poverty or illiteracy, etc.

No criticism or attacks on other platforms put forth here. This exercise is just to help you think about and decide what you're about, what you're for.

Make a compelling case.

Mine coming in next post.

dclary · Nov 19, 2006

My manifesto:

I believe America should be about equal opportunities for all. By this, I mean that all peoples should have an opportunity to come, work, and be citizens of our great nation, so long as they provide a valuable tradeskill, be it tech, clerical, agricultural, or domestic.

To this end, I would revise our immigration policy to make it easier for lower-waged workers to come to this countrly legally. At the same time, I would toughen enforcement and penalties for any who cannot or will not abide by the new immigration policy, while at the same time trying to find a reasonable solution that is equitable both to the US and to the millions of illegal residents already here.

I believe that we should have a strong military, legal, and ethical stance in the world. As one of the world's super powers, we will always be a target of organizations wanting to strike terror or imbalance in the world, and we should work with the world's unifying bodies to promote peace throughout the world, and use our military resources to thwart those who stand against peace.

I believe that to have a strong legal stance in the world, we need to belong and participate in the world's legal accords. This means ratifying global treaties like Kyoto, participating in the World Court, and working to make sure all laws are enforced fairly and evenly throughout the US.

I believe that America will only be truly respected when we set and stand by the strictest of ethics, both political, corporate, and personal. While these rules will always be shifting in the sands of time, we have the responsibility to set a line, and then the strength to hold it.

I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits, and to this end, a good capitalist must also be a good environmentalist. Resource management policies must be in place to both allow us to use our natural resources while at the same time ensuring future generations will have all they need in perpetuity. For non-renewable resources like petroleum, a smart capitalist should already be looking for the next energy source, and I will support any and all research and development in this way.

This is my platform for now. Maybe I'll post more later.

How about yours?

SpookyWriter · Nov 19, 2006

This is my platform for now. Maybe I'll post more later.

I can hardly wait. Not! Hhahahaaa...

blacbird · Nov 19, 2006

dclary said:
I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits

Again (as I've recently noted in another thread, and you have another rep point on its way) I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. These are ideals; they should not be confused with ideology, which is quite a different species.

But this statement gives me some pause. I've worked in a major industry at two major international corporations. And I can tell you, the top execs I worked for would never agree with the quoted statement above.

Now, you can argue these guys, who have succeeded by the only objective standard I can think of, are not "best capitalists". But I'd guess the markets largely would disagree.

Point being, that the current incarnation of the market system doesn't agree with what you say. The emphasis on short-term profit is just about absolute. You try to tell your shareholders and directors that you've forgone a quarterly profit for four or five quarters (just a year or a little more, maybe) in order to plan for bigger things down the road, guess what?

You want fries with that?

The entire market system, worldwide, is utterly dependent on short-term results. It's a horror, but what do you want to do about it? I'd guess it doesn't include anything having to do with governmental regulation.

So, in the end, it's an admirable philosophical position, having the substance of evening mist.

caw.

dclary · Nov 19, 2006

blacbird said:
Again (as I've recently noted in another thread, and you have another rep point on its way) I find myself in agreement with much of what you say. These are ideals; they should not be confused with ideology, which is quite a different species.

But this statement gives me some pause. I've worked in a major industry at two major international corporations. And I can tell you, the top execs I worked for would never agree with the quoted statement above.

Now, you can argue these guys, who have succeeded by the only objective standard I can think of, are not "best capitalists". But I'd guess the markets largely would disagree.

Point being, that the current incarnation of the market system doesn't agree with what you say. The emphasis on short-term profit is just about absolute. You try to tell your shareholders and directors that you've forgone a quarterly profit for four or five quarters (just a year or a little more, maybe) in order to plan for bigger things down the road, guess what?

You want fries with that?

The entire market system, worldwide, is utterly dependent on short-term results. It's a horror, but what do you want to do about it? I'd guess it doesn't include anything having to do with governmental regulation.

So, in the end, it's an admirable philosophical position, having the substance of evening mist.

caw.

I agree, blacky. I think the primary, defining problem with capitalism as practiced today, is that it is an imperfect, poor form, that doesn't take into account the necessities of existing tomorrow as well as succeeding today. To me, until our corporations understand and embrace this, they will continually be at strife both the world (depleting resources) and their internal assets, the worker (encouraging communism via unionization).

Opty · Nov 19, 2006

dclary said:
I believe that the best capitalist understands that long-term profits always outweigh short-term profits...

Yes, unfortunately, most humans (even the best, most intelligent, capitalists) don't think in those terms because of this and this.

What do both of those empirically prove? That humans seem to have an innate drive to be stupid.

blacbird · Nov 19, 2006

dclary said:
I agree, blacky. I think the primary, defining problem with capitalism as practiced today, is that it is an imperfect, poor form, that doesn't take into account the necessities of existing tomorrow as well as succeeding today. To me, until our corporations understand and embrace this, they will continually be at strife both the world (depleting resources) and their internal assets, the worker (encouraging communism via unionization).

It isn't a matter of simply understanding and embracing this idea. As long as the largely speculative global market system demands evidence of increased performance at every quarter (or more frequently, as current trends in electronic data transfer may mandate), nobody is going to pay any attention to what might happen two or three or five years from today. We'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow, and the next day the next day. That's what allows corporate execs to lay off thousands of employees to "save costs" today, without concern about what that might do to the bottom line tomorrow.

"The market" is not likely to correct this problem. Companies planning for tomorrow might well be wiped out by companies performing for today only. Whether or not an official "government" is good or bad at doing it, it is a legitimate concern of any viable "government" to be concerned about how the "market system" is performing relative to the well-being of citizens. Pretending that somehow the "market system" is always going to self-govern is nonsense. That's how you wind up with Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.

caw.

dclary · Nov 19, 2006

Well, I don't say eschew today's profits for tomorrow's. There just has to be a way to make money today, and money tomorrow. How freakin' hard can that be?

oswann · Nov 19, 2006

Oh brother. I can hear Billy's little fingers snapping over his keyboard at lightening speed gearing up for this thread.

Os.

blacbird · Nov 20, 2006

dclary said:
Well, I don't say eschew today's profits for tomorrow's. There just has to be a way to make money today, and money tomorrow. How freakin' hard can that be?

In many industries, a good deal hard than you think, apparently. My experience is with a major industry whose operations require a certain amount of commitment of investment forward for many years. So it is a constant matter of tension among the planners as to how much to invest and how much to return to shareholders right now. One of the ways you play this shell game can be to divide things into operating expenses and capital expenses, and squeeze the operating expenses (which get reflected in the Right Now), and conceal the capital expenses (which are down the road some distance) as much as possible. It's tricky, and results are never satisfactorily predictable, despite what spin comes out of the boardrooms.

And a hell of a lot of the tension gets driven by share prices, which, as you know, can be hellishly psychological. So there gets to be pressure to inflate those share prices in the short term, which leads to Enrons and WorldComs.

caw.

MattW · Nov 20, 2006

I have worked in an industry that trades future risk for current cash flow. In spite of government regulation and inspection, some of the companies would rather allow their manufacturing infrastucture to crumble to save money today, while facing the risk of potentially losing great amounts of revenue due to regulatory penalties.

Or, in advance of new products, make do with what is availabe, or only plan 18 months ahead when it can take 5 years to build the correct (safe/efficient/healthy) facilities and capacity.

It's a business, and never believe the slogans that safety is first, and people are the greatest resources. One of a few times I was glad for large government agencies watching out - I can't imagine how bad it would be if there weren't any fear of shutdowns.

blacbird · Nov 20, 2006

MattW said:
I have worked in an industry that trades future risk for current cash flow. In spite of government regulation and inspection, some of the companies would rather allow their manufacturing infrastucture to crumble to save money today, while facing the risk of potentially losing great amounts of revenue due to regulatory penalties.

Or, in advance of new products, make do with what is availabe, or only plan 18 months ahead when it can take 5 years to build the correct (safe/efficient/healthy) facilities and capacity.

It's a business, and never believe the slogans that safety is first, and people are the greatest resources. One of a few times I was glad for large government agencies watching out - I can't imagine how bad it would be if there weren't any fear of shutdowns.

Exactly.

caw

greglondon · Nov 20, 2006

I vow to hold true to the principle of courage: to think and act clearly in the presence of fear. I vow to acknowledge my fear as part of being human, but I will not allow it to control me.

I will control my fear.

I will not be paralyzed or panicked by barbarian bombers, by suicidal saboteurs, by homicidal criminals with explosives. I refuse to call them terrorists because I refuse to allow them to terrorize me.

I vow to fight these individuals with a clear head even though I may feel fear.

I vow to fight them with the weapon of superior principles: truth, liberty for all, justice for all, freedom of religion for all, freedom of speech for all, freedom of dissent for all, freedom of privacy for all, freedom to vote for all, and a government that responds to the people.

I vow to apply these principles to all humankind. If clear thinking determines that action is needed to enforce these principles, then I vow to take action.

I vow to act from these principles, from the strength of character that makes me better than the barbarians and better than the cowards.

I vow not to act from anger, vengeance, or hatred. I vow not to act from fear, panic, or terror. I vow not to fight simply based on physical strength. I vow not to encourage others to succumb to their fear. I vow not to surrender my principles.

I vow to call a coward anyone who would surrender all my principles because they have succumbed to fear.

I vow to call a coward those who see enemies in every shadow, who lash out at the innocent and uninvolved, who surrender all of my principles, all in an attempt to fight their own fear.

I vow to call a coward anyone who tries to hide their fear with false bravado or with unprincipled acts of violence, including attacks on civilians, kidnappings, cruel and unusual punishments, or torture.

I vow to call a coward anyone who says we cannot win unless we sacrifice my principles. Without my principles, the only difference between me and the barbarians is the color of the uniform and the type of weapon used.

I am better than them only so long as my principles are better.
I vow to hold true to all my principles in the presence of fear.
I vow myself to courage.

http://www.couragevow.com/

William Haskins · Nov 20, 2006

feed the belly
dazzle the eye

quell the anger
snuff the cry

make the people
forget they die

hide the truth
and spread the lie

take the land
and sell the sky

tell them how
but never why

feed the belly
dazzle the eye

panem et circenses

MacAllister · Nov 21, 2006

Found this online, from an existing organization. It's not at all what I believe, on a ton of levels--but it made me think about the differences between ideals and the execution. There can be some drastic changes between a stated set of goals, or platform, and the reality of how that plays out. On its surface, it seems reasonable, though quite conservative, y'know? Excepting the last item, of course, which is the dead giveaway.

******* Political Agenda
1. America First!
The very first responsibility of our government is to protect the welfare(jobs, health, future) of AMERICANS - not those in Mexico, Vietnam,Somalia, Haiti, or some other third world country. It is time to take America back.

2. Drug testing for Welfare Recipients.
Not everyone who is on welfare is taking drugs. We are aware of that,but there are many, especially in housing projects in large urban areas,who are taking drugs. If they have enough money for drugs, they don't need your money. If a welfare recipient is a drug user, their welfare check,food stamps, public housing, and etc. should be cut.

3. Protect America's Birthright.
If ******* were in political power laws would be enacted that would prevent American industry and property from being sold to foreigners. Americas should be owned by Americans - not Japanese, Arabs or Jews.

4. Do away with Affirmative Action Programs.
People in America should be hired, promoted or given scholarships based on ability, not because they have the right color of skin or because we feel sorry for them or because we are trying to appease some kind of self-inflicted guilt.

5. Protect American Jobs.
Americans are loosing [sic] jobs to foreign nations because our industry is moving to Mexico to obtain cheap labor which is often only 60 or 70 cents an hour. American industry is also enticed to move to Mexico in order to save millions because of non-existing environmental laws. The criminals in Washington have passed NAFTA and are now selling us out with GATT.

6. Close our Border.
The flood of illegal aliens coming across our borders needs to be stopped.If we can put 43,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect their borders,500,000 soldiers in Saudi Arabia to protect their borders. Why can we not put troops on our borders to protect our country from the invasion of illegal aliens? We must protect the future of our children, not the future of the children of Mexico.

7. Outlaw homo-sexuality and inter-racial marriages.
Until 20 or so years ago, nearly all states had 'sodomy' and miscegenation laws and statutes that were strictly enforced. Since that time they have been repealed or are ignored, the results are obvious with the plague of AIDSnow ravaging our land. Both of these abominations against God and nature must be stopped if America is ever to return to the great Christian nation it once was.

ColoradoGuy · Nov 21, 2006

Item #3 is also interesting.

3. Protect America's Birthright.
If ******* were in political power laws would be enacted that would prevent American industry and property from being sold to foreigners. Americas should be owned by Americans - not Japanese, Arabs or Jews.

badducky · Nov 21, 2006

One of my ex-girlfriends was an anarchist when we left each other.

Me? You couldn't pay me, bribe me, or threaten me into Pennsylvania Avenue.

My platform: Go ask the smartest person you know, and god save you if that person is me!

MacAllister · Nov 21, 2006

Oh, definitely.

The thing is, I'm hearing these sorts of sentiments more and more, just lately--online and in real life.

badducky · Nov 21, 2006

Oh, and Mac, don't tell me you cut and pasted directly. I know you had to go through and clean up their spehlinng.

Everyone I've ever met who talked like that couldn't spell "American" out loud.

edit: Looking carefully, and critically at the grammar of the above passage is increasing my head-ache too much to allow me to go into detail. However, if one begins a sentence with the word "if", one should attach a comma and complete the sentence with an independent clause.

ColoradoGuy · Nov 21, 2006

And all this time I thought one could be both an American and a Jew.

MacAllister · Nov 21, 2006

Badducky, actually, I did. I marked with a [sic] the misspelling I noticed, though--and obscured the organization's identity.

It's not just for drop-outs, anymore.

billythrilly7th · Nov 21, 2006

I vow never to take the "courage vow."

Thank you and god bless America.
William H. Thrilly 7th

blacbird · Nov 21, 2006

As Mac noted, Item 7 on that "agenda" is a dead giveaway as to what these people really are about. It's obviously an Aryan Nations/KKK related group, and paying any attention to these people, other than to guard against them committing violence, is a waste of time.

caw

MacAllister · Nov 21, 2006

Guarding against thinly-disguised racism and irrational fear of "other" is precisely where I'm going with this, blacbird.

But if I were a social conservative, I'd be carefully examining why it is my vocabulary can be so easily co-opted by these groups.

greglondon · Nov 21, 2006

billythrilly7th said:
I vow never to take the "courage vow."

dclary started this by saying
"No criticism or attacks on other platforms put forth here",
but I figured that wouldn't last.

Nice going, Billy.

Your Manifesto

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Unabashed Mercenary

Grumpy

Company Man

Planet Wookie techno geek

poet

'Twas but a dream of thee

I've seen worse.

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

'Twas but a dream of thee

No Time For Chitchat, Kemosabe.

I've seen worse.

'Twas but a dream of thee

'Twas but a dream of thee

Planet Wookie techno geek