[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Donna

A nicely worded statement with which I have no qualms.

Have you ever hear of the 'heiarchy of needs'? I forget who the author was, offhand. I haven't studied Psychology for over thirty years.

OK - it was Maslow .

Basically, if a person is worried about their physiological needs (the base of the pyramid - check the above link), they're not going to worry about anything at a higher level. If they have the necessities, but are concerned about their immediate safety, things like family/friends, self-esteem, self-actualization aren't even on their radar screen.

The majority of people are dealing with issues very low on the heirarchy. They can't afford idealism until their basic needs are taken care of.

I don't disagree with your ideals, Donna. I merely think it is unrealistic to expect people to vote on their ideals. I have also indicated I am a cynic: when someone tells me they're voting is based strictly on their ideals, I tend to wonder if they're merely trying to fool me, or whether they're fooling themselves.

Are there people who will vote for the common good even though it might make their own life poorer? Yes, probably. But they don't go around bragging about it.



[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 07, 2008).]

[Roger Slater]

Of course they do, Jerry. There are many people who vote for the party that, according to popular wisdom, will increase their taxes. But I would rather pay slightly higher taxes than have habeas corpus suspended, live in a country that snoops in my bedroom and doesn't provide children with health care, or watch a president clear brush while on vacation at his Texas (or Arizona) ranch.

Besides, I don't agree with you that it would be in the economic best interests of anyone but oil executives to elect a Republican. The Obama tax proposals have been lied about by McCain, and I also believe in "trickle up," i.e., that when you exploit the lower and middle classes economically, eventually the crisis is felt by the rich, as well. Witness what's happening right now with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Frankly, I'm not sure you know where your bread is buttered, even if you don't care about other people's bread.



[This message has been edited by Roger Slater (edited September 07, 2008).]

[Donna English]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:
Donna

A nicely worded statement with which I have no qualms.

Have you ever hear of the 'heiarchy of needs'? I forget who the author was, offhand. I haven't studied Psychology for over thirty years.

OK - it was Maslow .

Basically, if a person is worried about their physiological needs (the base of the pyramid - check the above link), they're not going to worry about anything at a higher level. If they have the necessities, but are concerned about their immediate safety, things like family/friends, self-esteem, self-actualization aren't even on their radar screen.

The majority of people are dealing with issues very low on the heirarchy. They can't afford idealism until their basic needs are taken care of.

I don't disagree with your ideals, Donna. I merely think it is unrealistic to expect people to vote on their ideals. I have also indicated I am a cynic: when someone tells me they're voting is based strictly on their ideals, I tend to wonder if they're merely trying to fool me, or whether they're fooling themselves.

Are there people who will vote for the common good even though it might make their own life poorer? Yes, probably. But they don't go around bragging about it.

But Jerry, it doesn't ring true. The people I'm talking about are voting based on moral/values issues at the very top of the heirarchy. They are not voting (like me and surely many others)on the things that could effect their health, their employment, their safety, their kids futures etc. And I believe that those on the bottom of the heirarchy's pyramid, those focused on breathing, eating, sex and shitting do not vote at all, ever. They appear to be those in prison or hospitalized or newborn babies. This is the United States of America, won't you concede that the vast majority of citizens have their most basic biological needs met? And that a vast majority have their second most needs of health, employment, etc met? I'm, sure I would have heard if the unemployment and homlessness rate was 51% or more.


Edited to add further thoughts. Along the lines of those without basic needs met. Have you considered how those in poor and poorly governed nations, when given the first opportunity to vote, vote in greater ratios than in our own country?

I think in many ways we are a country with too many lazy, selfish, and spoiled brats. And you don't have to be rich to be a brat; you just have to whine, hit and spit, throw tantrums, and ignore the rules. Breaking the window when you're trying to hit a homer is not the same as breaking the window to steal something.

Donna

[This message has been edited by fivefootone (edited September 07, 2008).]

[David Rosenthal]

Originally posted by Roger Slater:
I just learned online that the McCain campaign did in fact pay the licensing fee, in advance, for Barracuda, so there was clearly no copyright violation in this instance as I had previously thought. The copyright holders have said, however, that they will donate the fee to the DNC, so it's quite nice of McCain to support Obama in this fashion.

My brother just sent me this link on the subject:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9...8475/50/588787

David R.

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

Donna

won't you concede that the vast majority of citizens have their most basic biological needs met?

No Donna, I don't. A person doesn't need to be homeless to wonder if they have enough money to put food on the table tomorrow, or to cover the medical payments, etc.

One of the reasons that mortgage of mine is so low is because Ohio currently has a drasically high mortgage default rate. People are losing their homes at a record rate. Few new loans are being incurred and the banks are fighting for new business.

And I believe that those on the bottom of the heirarchy's pyramid, those focused on breathing, eating, sex and shitting do not vote at all, ever.

I think you've also just insulted a good portion of the population by claiming 'they don't vote anyhow' - a very naive satement, imo.

The jobless rate means nothing when the paycheck doesn't meet the worker's economic needs.

Retirees whose incomes are fixed and can no longer afford property taxes due to land values (in the past) constantly rising and are about to lose their homes. That falls under physiological needs (not biological).

Donna, I'm a cop, and most of the problems I deal with are symptoms of problems in that physiological level, and I work in an upper middle-income or better city. The few homeless we have are drifting through.

I'm talking about everyday, blue and white collar workers. They're worried. I hear the stories several times a day.

Gas drive offs have practically doubled in the past year in our community, and I don't mean vagabonds or kids in old cars, but family people in SUVs who 'accidently forgot' to pay, even though a clerk was standing next to their car window yelling at them to stop.

People are spending less on non-essentials, so businesses are cutting down on payroll and personnel. less money going out to the labor force.

The majority of domestic violence calls have always been about money or sex. The ratio of money related calls over sex related calls has grown significantly. (The most recent I eas on was a man who owned his own business - he appraised real estate. He hasn't had any business -see above - and his wife had to go back to work, yada yada yada. You get the drift. Tight budget, male ego, she wants to go shopping instead of being here with the kids and we don't have the money, etc.)

Oh yeah - and these people vote. What issues do you think are most important to them? Are they going to vote based on morality or common good?

Even the people better off want to stay that way, and will vote accordingly.




[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited September 07, 2008).]

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

I have to agree with Jerry on this one - unfortunately. There are many, many families today who do not have enough to eat, who do not have adequate heat and electricity, who can no longer make their mortgages or their rent payments and who are either grossly underinsured or not insured at all. They know that while they are not homeless yet, the possibility is but one paycheck away. All it's going to take is one illness or one accident or one more unexpected bill to show up and the American Dream is just that - a dream.

And as for the old people - don't even get me started. Both my own mother and Dan's mother were left what they considered to be "well enough off." Both of our fathers worked their entire lives, saved their money, invested their money and had "safe and secure pensions." Both of our moms are widows - and we are now in the position of having to either forego our own retirement savings or let them lose their houses due to rising taxes and the cost of living which has far outstripped their pensions.

So no, unemployment is not 51% or better - but it doesn't need to be - during The Great Depression the unemployment rate was 25-30% and we all know how that worked for most people. We are now at a high of 6.1% - up dramatically from 5 years ago.

1.6 million people spent time in homeless shelters between Oct. 1, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2007. That's a whole lot of people - and "homeless" does not take into account people who have been forced to move in with family or friends. Nor does it count those who do not seek shelter or who do not fit the criteria for shelter - in other words, we have no accurate count of who doesn't find a bed each night, we can only count those who do.

Do these people vote? I dunno. I would image mere survival takes precedence over voting.

Are there still "idealists" who vote with them in mind?

I certainly hope so.

Because no matter who you are or what you think you've got - I do not understand how anyone can forget the phrase, "There but for the grace of God, go I."

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

And if you read the criteria for the pyramid, it refers to people who are 'concerned' or 'worried' about that particular level of need. A family may be doing OK on that level, but if the head of household is worried about his ability to keep working, therefore his abiltiy to buy food or provide shelter, then he won't be thinking about less material concerns.

And don't tell me he's the type that's not going to vote, anyway.

[Anne Bryant-Hamon]

Originally posted by Terese Coe:
Palin church promotes converting gays:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR200809 0503316.html?hpid=sec-religion

Thanks for posting Terese -

Stunning to realize that this bat-crap crazy woman could conceivable be the President of the U.S. as early as 2009.
Here is an excerpt from the article:

Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the "Love Won Out" Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.


I just watched the McCain acceptance speech again today. He is running on: CHANGE/CHOICE/COUNTRY FIRST/FREEDOM/PEACE

Can you believe that? And the right wing base is stirred up by this Palin woman and they believe McCain is the savior they've been waiting for! Wow! Interesting times we live in - for sure. The gays/guns/god issue looms so large in these people's minds that they seem oblivious to the corruption that has saturated the Republican party and they seem unconcerned about all this ratcheting up of war talk with Iran/Russia etc...

Obama said in his very humble acceptance speech, "This election is not about me -- it is about you (Americans)." If we reject Obama for President, what does that say about us as nation?

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Jerry Glenn Hartwig:
The point is not whether a songwriter was happy at how a song was used, but that some people will grab rumor and wave it about as a sword of truth without bothering to check the facts. Yet, when the same rumor (copyright violation) emerges about their own candidate, those people who cried "Foul! Foul!" are strangely silent...

Both candidates and their supporters are human. Mistakes don't make "beasts" "running roughshod" over anything.

Again, I merely ask that people not be hypocrites. It is apparently too much to ask.

Actually, the point is exactly whether the songwriter was pleased with the use of their song, and whether after objections were raised, the persons continued to use the song in the same way.

In the case of the RNC and Heart, this is exactly the case.

In the case of the country song used by Obama, McCain and George W. Bush as well, the creators were ambivalent--the songwriter is a Democrat but at least one of the singers is a staunch Republican--but they publicly said they were pleased with everyone using it. So, in short, a non-issue. There was smoke, but no fire.

The difference isn't hypocrisy. It's being able to tell the difference between an inch and an ell, and being able to judge where there isn't even an inch to begin with.

[Jerry Glenn Hartwig]

We will disagree *shrug*