On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:24:50 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

snip

Don't confuse moral outrage with the sudden realization that you
have been lied to and have been had big time, although one
frequently results in the other.

In many, but not all, cases the people are getting out of what
they now preceive to be a rigged game, with all the cards stacked
against them.

Ahem, Ed, are you reading this?
HERE is MY political problem - exactly.
Let me expand that. Not only are the decks stacked, all the
cards are marked, all the dice are loaded, all the wheels rigged,
and all the slots fixed, and the sheriff has a half interest in
the Casino.

As I indicated in other posts, the foundational financial problem
appears to have been the gross proliferation of megalomaniacs in
charge of increasingly powerful institutions rather than any
criminal cabals or plots.

WoW!
A backup study.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1007155100.htm
Note that these people more or less self select for these
positions, which then reinforce the egomania tendencies. Most
likely very helpful/adaptive in hunter/geatherer tribal societies
with short individual life spans, but now very
maladaptive/counterproductive. This also should help explain why
the application of criminal statutes will not be, and have not
been, particularly effective.

However this was possible only because of the general acceptance
of societies's myths and legends such as the unquestioning belief
in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Great
Pumpkin, etc. that brings toys to all the "good" little boys and
girls, i.e. the reality of the existence of a cornucopia or "horn
of plenty," that [only] the megalomaniacs know how to operate. A
second "assumption of facts not in evidence," but widely assumed,
is that the cornucopia operators will share the bounty generated.


Does that include voting for a fellow who tells you what he thinks
you want to hear - then does the opposite when elected?

This paragraph seems to say that We, The People are to blame for
believing what we hear from our candidates.
To the extent that a record exists and you can see what the
candidate did or did not do, and you chose to believe what they
say because you like that better than what they have historically
done, that is indeed the case.

There is however the case where the "paper trail" has been
carefully erased and the story has been "spiked" by the media
management. This is far more common than you might think in
large organizations of all types.

With the expansion of the WWW/internet this is becoming more
difficult. Look up the voting records to see how the gas bags
voted on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the exemption of
derivative oversight. This is not a matter of opinion but of
public record.

It should be obvious that a critical reexamination/reevaluation
of the basic beliefs about the way the economy/society works by a
large number of citizens, possibly a majority, will be
"destabilizing," to say the least.