Priceless
Every morning, every United States senator wakes up and his first thought is... "Today I have to raise $20,000... or at the end of the next elections I will not have a job." This documentary is about the government and citizens who want to do a better job for the country they love. Why is it that so many Americans seem concerned about the impact of money on the elected leaders? Is it because some of the policies they're making or lack of oversight that's affecting people's daily lives?
Given the major mishaps the US government has let happened, or ignored, or funded with tax dollars, maybe that is why every election year so many of the people vote for the candidate who'll promise the most change. But, can anyone office-holder, with the way things work, or don't work in the Washington DC, keep their promise to represent ordinary Americans? And if money really is the change-stopper how exactly does that happen?
Steve Cowan set out on the road to follow the money trail, to find out who the government is really working for and if not the people what can be done to take it back. The search for answers begins in a supermarket because before getting into energy, or foreign policy, Steve thought to start simple. The need for healthy food is about as basic as it gets and we don't usually think of whether it's wholesome or not as being affected by money and politics.
No matter where Steve traveled in California's central valley, often called nation's fruit and vegetable basket, he was surrounded by crops being sprayed with all sorts of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. And according to the State's department of pesticide regulation, over 100 million pounds of these chemicals, many extremely toxic, are used each year in the central valley alone. Lot of these pesticides can easily contaminate our water and soil, so Steve wondered if the government is aware of the danger.
I agree with the overall message of this documentary, however some of the points they used to illustrate it just didn't sit well with me.
When they brought up wind and solar energy, for example, I heard "Wind and solar energy are profitable business models and have the potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but since the government wont give them subsidies, they are stuck producing just 0.5% of the energy consumed" I disagree with this point entirely. Wind and solar are expensive ways to get energy, they only produce energy intermittently (when its daytime, when the wind blows). The fact that they produce only .5% of the energy we use shows that they are not capable of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels in any significant way any time soon. They both come with a lot of strings attached and aren't as environmentally friendly as they might sound. Check the first 5 minutes of the highest rated documentary on this website: (thorium: an energy solution)
I also do not think that having the government pay for campaigns is a much better idea than having corporations do it. I believe there should just be a drastic reduction in the amount of money politicians are legally allowed to receive in campaign contributions, in total as well as per donation. our elected representatives should be held legally responsible when they break the law i agree with cyberfrank they should go to prison. It might be hard to get the government to ever investigate and prosecute itself.
Maybe members of the public should give donations toward private investigators to snoop around politicians we feel are doing things unethically or illegally and then present the evidence and demand that they be removed from office and prosecuted?
it should be illegal for politicians to take money except their salary, anyone caught doing otherwise should go to prison, the way things are now, they are simply for sale to the highiest bidder.
Money isn't the problem, rather it's that we've given the government the power to meddle in every facet of our lives. Remove the government's ability to tell you what to do, how to do it, when to do it and you'll also magically remove money from politics. If the government is restrained, lobbyists can't lobby to have it do things.
When you allow government to regulate your very existence, you invite money to corrupt and pervert the system so that corporations, unions, interest groups, and anyone who wants to use government power for their own ends will dangle dollars in politicians' faces. And politicians of both parties being the spineless scum that the are, won't resist the temptation.
So the solution is simple. It's not stopping the right of people to support candidates they like with financial contributions, but rather cut back the size and scope of government. A government that is kept within its constitutional boundaries is one that will have very little influence over our day to day lives and is one lobbyists won't have an interest in contributing to. In fact, there wouldn't even be lobbyists.
Government is a tool, an implement, you are confusing cause and effect. It is not the fault of the implement it is in the hands of the user of the implement. Take back government and place it in the proper hands, as the founders of this nation did, restrict its use by restricting the USERS not he implement, and then you have something. As long as the money controls the tool money will prevail. The same as if the controling player in the game of monopoly can adjust the rules at will. He can't lose!
I think you give people too much credit. The use of the government "tool" cannot be trusted in the hands of the people, which is why the framers of the Constitution limited its power. As Thomas Jefferson noted, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Limit government, limit those who would use it for their own gain. Limit money -- hey! remember McCain's campaign finance reform?! -- and like squeezing a balloon, the problem just pops out somewhere else because people still want to have the power exerted for their own ends.
So again, money is not the problem, government itself is the problem.
First, I didn't like how this otherwise informative doc. tried to cover the problems of agribusiness along with all the problems of lobbying. Agribusiness could have served well as an example, but it ended up being a documentary about both issues and neither. What I mean to say is that I wished they would have focused on the lobbying, and left other issues for another documentary.
But it was very heartening to learn about what's been happening in Arizona and Maine. It never occurred to me that the problem (suspending for a moment the specter of cheating and graft) of lobbying by super-rich corporations could be diminished simply by making campaign contributions illegal. I think that would accomplish a lot, even in the environment today. I'm going to write all the representative of my state and tell them I'm not going to vote for any of them that don't support a cleaner election bill. That might get a giggle out of some, but if enough of us do it things will change.
Besides, if you want anything remotely like representative government, it's your only choice. Today's legislature looks more like Rome's Senate before Caesar took over than any sort of democracy.
It's what makes american politics so utterly corrupt. The more money you give the more favours you will receive. lobbying is another corrupt form of politics. the elite and their companies get laws written for them and not the people.
the public & their direct voted officials with full control of money creation/distribution is the only way out of wealth accumilation by co-operate assimilation.quite easy actually if it weren't for power centration with state force as a backing.
Actually, I think it's all about the state force, and the bankers second. And I don't think that's a technicality either.
"Corporations are not your friend".-Mitt Romney
"Corporations are NOT persons." -Me
If corporations are people, some should get the death penalty and some should face life imprisonement, some should be deported.
That sure adds a whole new dimension to being fired!
Corporations sure make the world a boring and homogenous place-if you've been to one Skanky McNasty's, Pizza Gut, Cambodian Tire, Fart Mart-you've been to them all, everywhere all over the world.
Lol! I won't be using the old term, "Crappy Tire", again!
I hate their "30 day unconditional guarantee", I've tried to take things back the next day and they've quibbled with me.I know if something is junk-just give me a 2 day unconditional no BS guarantee-no buts, please!
I feel your pain.
Our store is famous for missing parts after you open the packaging.
If something's broken or defective, contact the manufacturer!
'Liquidated' might be a good euphemism...
well said and congrats to Arizona and Maine.
Iberdrola Renewables is a cool thing. Vestas Visions Vansycle Wind Farm is a film I made about wind mills. I sure love them. It's not fair that alternative forms of energy do not get more notice. It's all about money; and who gives the most. Like "I'll scratch your back, and you scratch mine" premise. Sad.
politics and government is a mental illness.
Almost as much as organised religion. 2 of those 3 are necessary though, 1 is just mental... can you guess which one Janeen?
The one that thinks it isn't man-made.
Societies can't function without some kind of organization and common rules. They are far from perfect but much better than the chaos that would ensue if anyone could do whatever they want whenever they wanted.
I guess you are no fan of any form of anarchy?
Don't get me wrong though, i don't think politics and government are mental illnesses.
Some of the best achievements of humanity came from different form of governments that I don't think could have been achieved by anarchy. The Egyptian Pyramids, The Great wall of China, the Panama Canal and Space exploration come to mind without too much thinking.
I respect your view. Though personally i'm not sure yet if the examples you give would not be possible without government. At least, I hope you realise that some anarchist make a distinction between 'to govern' and 'to organise'.
It greatly depends how you define anarchy. My definition is a system without leaders and no authority to enforce rules or laws. It can only work if everybody agrees with its principles and applies them all the time. Humans being what they are, self-discipline is probably the worst way to have an organization function as expected.
Sure, it also greatly depends on how you define government. However, i'm not sure i totally agree with 'humans being what they are'. Shared interest can as much be a motivator.
Shared interest will work in a small group, I can't see how it could work with millions of people with different ideas and ideals.
I agree, it probably only works for small groups, leaving aside what a threshold for a small group is. But different groups can work together. Clearly, some organisation or government comes with that, though the question remains, what kind of government? Do we need a bottom up or a top-down approach? Or a balance between such approaches?
I don't have a serious problem with democratically elected governments. I have no idea if they classify as bottom up or top-down. I have a serious problem with bribery and corruption. They would be rather easy to deal with with good independent investigative units, strongly enforced laws and monitored caps on political contributions.
Sadly, the US supreme court came up with the fallacy that corporations are persons and should be allowed to spend without cap to help win elections. Hopefully, the general population will see through that gimmick and vote without basing their opinions on ad campaigns.
Just a thought here, but have it ever occurred to you that our fear of anarchy might be indoctrinated? There are still isolated tribes being found that proves humans can live a life in harmony without authorities and laws. Empathy and solidarity leads to a high standard of moral and ethics. Common sense will do the rest I think. On the other hand I think we have gone too far on our current path to turn things around. We are not a tribe of 200 people anymore but thousands of millions competing for food and stuff. Definitely not the ideal place for peace and harmony :-(
I disagree, here is what Steven Pinker, experimental psychologist and cognitive scientist has to say : "Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective
violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether
tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking
them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there
can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice
system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide
rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at
the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the
emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the
world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy
in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of
violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's
still-romantic climate."
Just look at Somalia, when the government fell, the crime rate went through the roof and for a while it was the most dangerous place to be on the planet. Common sense, morals and ethics went down the drain in a flash.
Of course this is very complex and problematic. A nation state that have been used to authority would probably turn into a violent turmoil in case of anarchy because the moral standards are hugely set by the authority rather than individuals. But of course, as any other animal on this planet, we are equipped with skills to live together in a rather peaceful way. And I am rather sure that the picture of humans as a fierce and violent animal is wrong and perhaps also intentionally made up. Anyway it is probably too late to reverse as this overpopulated world definitely brings out the worst in people. Scarcity and competition is a great recipe for chaos and disaster.
I am not sure that authorities and laws are the problem.....
The problem is how we all feed ourselves and house ourselves in a world of 7 billion. I agree that in a small tribe of 100-200 people life is probably not that bad. However that said there is nothing stopping people in the UK getting on a plane and flying to the Amazon and starting their own tribe or just living in woods in the UK. Clearly there is a lot of things that we like about the modern world. Its fantastic technology, the internet, advanced medicine and so on. But there are also a lot of things we hate about the modern world, driving cars that pollute the environment, traffic congestion, expensive gas bills, politicians that largely ignore us, seeing food prices go up every month. So the main task is how to make the economy work better.
I would be inclined to agree that you need some ground rules for a society. Politics and government are a simple fact of life in any sizeable gathering of people, however surely it is what you do with them that can be judged to be sane or otherwise.
I'd personally say that Corporate Fascism is the real mental illness here. Moreover, since corporations in America now appear to have the rights of a citizen (I still find this very hard to believe that such a thing could be passed, a bit like Caligula and the "noble Incitatus"), then it does beg the question as to whether we can now legitimately speculate on their mental health?
Here in the UK we have something called the "Mental Health Act", whereby, if an individual is deemed to be a potential threat to their own well being or the well being of society at large, then they can be detained for mental asessment and possible treatment. I don't know if you have a similar facility in the USA, but if you consider how high a score some corporations would attain in a psychopathy test, along with a very jaded track record of causing environmental damage, economic carnage and worse, then you might have reasonable grounds to have them arrested for everyone's safety.
I imagine it'd be rather difficult for them to instigate further monopolistic outrages on a heavy dose of Haloperidol from the comfort of a padded board room... just a cheering thought :-)
lol I don't think it applies to economical and environmental threat. I'd love to see it argued in court though.
Not sure I would class politics and government as a mental illness...... That said it would be nice to have more independent MPs, and move away from party politics. Eventually I think a smartphone app could help democracy. Let the population vote on their smartphone for big decisions. i.e tax policy and going to war.
Well yes, a direct voting system for all citizens on all major policy decisions via their smart phones does have an overwhelming sense of fair play to it (it's like ancient Athenian democracy played out on an epic scale, but without the underclass of slaves that is, well hopefully!), but, unless the underlying problem of manipulative corporate media control is resolved, it would present the possibility of all manner of dangerous, ill-thought-out, knee jerk reaction motions being carried with disastrous consequences. Just look how easily the electorate are swayed by sound bites without so much as a cursory investigation into what is actually being asserted. I guess it boils down to the old republic versus democracy debate, as to whether you have some fixed, or at least very difficult to change, basic laws that underpin and temper your democratic process, or whether you have a voting free for all and accept the possible consequences. It's a tough call and there are arguments for both sides.
However, as long as corporations can control the major media outlets, political progress will be compromised. The only way to fight it is from the ground up, by doing that which the corporate types clearly do not consider us capable of doing, namely educating ourselves and spreading the word. This is where the battle will be fought, right here on the internet, as its challenge to their control of the media arrived so quickly that it caught them napping and they are still struggling to assert control over it.
In the UK we have a lot of debates that are pretty open. Question Time, This Week, Free Speech, the odd Channel 4 debate. (There is usually people on from the far left and the right) I am not sure I buy into this "blame the corporations for everything conspiracy".
It's not a conspiracy. It's also not in the sense of a consciously evil entity that is usually forwarded to explain it. It just happens that because a company is made of multiple people without individual responsibility for it, it ends up behaving in a psychotic way. There is a great documentary "the corporation" (2003) which analises this in-depth.
Yeah its a great doc!. My point is that in the UK a lot of debates are usually pretty open anyway. Also I would argue that an e-democracy could go ahead regardless of how many corporations exist, as we have a largely free media in the UK, where there are vocal voices from both the left and right. Even the anti-e.u./anti-immigration voices get heard now and then. Even people like George Galloway can often be found on mainstream debate shows sat opposite a government minister.
I'd have to agree, it's definitely way too banal to be a conspiracy and is simply a matter of corporations blindly following the bottom line, looking for the best returns for their shareholders.
Speaking as one of those pesky Georgists, I would say that it is really just part and parcel of what happens when you subscribe to an economic model where only capital exists.
As regards my comments on control of the media, admittedly the mainstream UK media are considerably more open than their American counterparts, but I wouldn't let that lull you into a false sense of security, as a lot of important stories still seem to slip through the net. Even the hallowed BBC with their license fee, are not immune to political and other outside influences, the top job at broadcasting house being historically a rather political position, and all Director Generals live in fear of the corporate newspapers running a “DG must go!” headline. As for where loyalties lie amongst their heavy weight political journalists, does anyone remember Jeremy Paxman being caught by photographers rushing round to Peter Mandelson's place first thing in the morning to apologise for Mathew Paris' outing of him live on his show the night before?
Anyway, I became disenchanted with the license fee and threw our TV out long before the Jimmy Saville scandal put the last nail in their credibility. I personally think the best approach is to regularly check the coverage between all the major news outlets, from Fox and CNN at one end, the Beeb and C4 in the middle, to RT and Al Jazeera at the other. Just keep in mind where the funding comes from for these organisations and the gaps in their coverage become quite understandable.
That is one area where the internet has lessened the grip of corporate interests. I recall first becoming aware of the disparity of news coverage between the US and UK media when I was living in New York, back in the days before web TV channels when they could barely stream music, and that was entirely down to the fact that I was flying back and forth to London regularly and was in a position to notice which stories were being buried and the different angles being adopted. These days, that sort of comparison is merely a click away and I'd strongly encourage everyone to take the time to do it.
However, it also has to be said that a large proportion of the population take very little interest in World news or politics and just pick up the odd sound bite in the run up to an election (that's if they can be bothered to vote), so you could argue a further form of media control in the general dumbing down and distracting of the electorate. I used to say that if you listen very carefully when a party political broadcast comes on air, you can hear the faint sound of millions of sets of knuckles scraping the carpet as the disinterested lurch about the room looking for the remote.
Good post. LOL at the last bit. Yeah I often flick between Al-Jazeera, RT, a bit of Sky bit of Ch4. If I want to laugh at the USA then I will watch fox news for 10 mins. I also try and follow the odd blog here and there. PressTV had some good moments with George Galloway. (Though this was removed from the TV by the British government).....
Yes, Fox are particularly dreadful. I can't bear to watch them for very long, as I tend to get cramp in my jaw from cringing, but I do find you can usually get a pretty good summary of what they've been up to from Abby Martin's show on RT, as she seems to keep an eye on them. That said, I couldn't help noticing the difference in the recent coverage of Sochi between RT and Vice, who usually sing from pretty much the same song sheet. I consider RT one of the best channels, but they still have to go on-message with the sponsors from time to time, so it certainly pays to surf about.
"Conspiracy" has become a dirty word, but "concerted effort" is quite plausible when you look at the ownership structure of the major corporations. The principle stock holders (i.e."owners") are banks and the ownership of the banks comprises the ultra elite of a ruling class. The concentration of ownership of the corporations enables centralized global strategy.
Well yes, it's written into the definition of a corporation that their sole concern is to maximise returns for the shareholders, and to do that you need to show growth, so it certainly is one big concerted effort. Unfortunately, if land (including all natural resources) is allowed to be treated as just another form of capital, meaning it can be privately owned and monopolised, then its misappropriation becomes the number one goal of the corporations. Control of banking systems, the media, and political parties are all to be seen as good opportunities for growth and a healthy return for the shareholders, and, as the corporations grow, power becomes ever more concentrated in the hands of the few, so they naturally begin to network amongst themselves and you'll see things like the Bilderberg Group and the possible adoption of global strategies.
The point is, the world is subsequently stuck in a rather nasty game of Monopoly, and we all know how that ends, either one player is left standing at the end, or, as is more common in my experience, everyone who's losing gets thoroughly pissed off and decides to do something more interesting with their time :-)
However, on a more serious note, if we do allow the current game to run all the way to the end, the result will be by definition “fascism” and people do need to be made more aware of that.
It is for this reason that I would say the root of fascism is neoclassical economics, and the antidote can be found in the work of Henry George. I'd say there is still time to turn this situation around in a sane and peaceful way, well, if we get a bit of a move on that is...
I'm not convinced that allowing only teenage girls to vote would be good for any country.
Where did that left field comment come from?
I left that comment before any other response to @socratesuk:disqus & the long discussion that has since followed.
I was intending a little light comic relief. It is a common sight in society at large that teen age girls are the most prolific users of smart phones. It was his/her idea that we should vote on "big decisions" via smart phones. Hence my comment about teen age girls deciding the fate of any country.
Oh I see. lol Yes, funny. I think they'd vote wiser than middle-aged men!
over 1/2 of the population has an IQ below 101. That is a simple fact. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Does an IQ test score really matter in the real world? I don't think it does!. Some of our MPs might have a high IQ score, but they rarely talk any sense.
i have been told i have an iq of 145, and I don't get any thing for it. I have a wicked computer collection made out of random bits, I think most people are scared to be smart. like doing the thoughts they have might get them introuble by an invisable parental figure. then there are people with mental health issues who have no access for suport and a reasonably un restricted suply of guns drugs and privlage. you can find them doing all sorts of terrible things to our world. preaching, shootings, opening fast food franchises, working as the GM ceo, and many other insane but acceptable terrorist acts.
when this sort of thing happens in our country, we Canadians call it American style politics, you guys didn't invent it, but you do keep it famous! the english have it, china has it, rome sure as f*kfc had it.
Great doc.
Well thanks for that post. I think this obsession with IQ really doesn't help things at times. What we really need is more democracy!. Eventually something like an e-democracy will come about. Its just a matter of time. 10-20 years maybe?
Maybe.
But the current trend is very much the other way. The global trend is toward Oligarchy.
An "e-democacy" where the information flow is orchestrated by a de facto ruling elite would not be much different from the current status quo
its still do-able. Especially if there was a kind of independent jury service that monitored the room where all the data came in.... Or alternatively we stick with the current format of voting, but rather than vote for people, we vote on policy every couple of years instead....
Sorry I did not make the central point clear to you Soc. When the opinions of the masses are formulated by the information selectively fed to them by the elite they wlll vote the way the elite wants.
Watch "rule from the shadows" in the new docs here.
Thats a fair point, I would argue more and more people seem to be challenging elites/poor forms of democracy tho. See recent Ukraine and Venezuela riots/revolutions.
Also look at Turkey, only yesterday protests broke out, as leaked audio recording made it onto Youtube. (Possible fake recording, its hard to tell).
Also the internet is largely uncensored. People like Chomsky and Zizek are not blocked on youtube or anything..... Were having a very open and uncensored chat right now!. The internet is a great place for open debates and ideas, and more and more people now go on the internet to find news from various news outlets/blogs/sources.
There is still hope.
I too sense a rising tide of revolution in the zeitgeist of the world.
The web is vulnerable of course. As we see in North Korea and China it is not beyond the reach of the State. I also note that revolutions can be hijacked (e,g, Iran) but I share your glimmer of hope.
My personal article of faith is that Reason will eventually prevail.
Here here.
I always get the awful feeling that all our anti-government comments are dully noted and on file somewhere for future reference.
Am I just loosing it?
Who cares if they are.....Were allowed to express our views on things.
I don't want my comments to come back and haunt me if I'm ever under scrutiny at a border crossing.
People can get in so much s#@t if they express something deemed a threat to national security.
Even if they're just joking about it.
Hmmm that's only if we actually "plan something". We are within our rights to express views on things. However its when people start to plan riots/or revolutions/or direct action that legally their comments might land them in prison. But we can still change things legally. I.E by forming a new political party in both the USA and UK.
Here in Canada we are represented by 5 political parties + 3 independent seats, in our House of Commons.
I won't be planning a revolution anytime soon! :)
Ack- that's just wimpy.
Give me Liberty or give me Death! That's the real stuff.
Seriously, to live in fear is not to live at all. Fearful people never change the world, never better it.
I am not fearful, I am cautious. I speak out and act when I deem it is appropriate.
And believe me, I do.
I apologize- I didn't mean that personally toward you. I've no doubt you speak your mind and you have every right to say what you want when you want to say it.
No one likes getting a military shakedown. lol
No prob.
I admire your enthusiasm. :D
Agree wholeheartedly, I'll keep doing it, speaking my mind in public.The governments are all corrupt to some extent, New Zealand being one of the least corrupt. Check out their electoral system for some pointers on a positive model.
when you get a democracy you'll feel smarter i guess... good luck with not getting involved solving any thing. keep buying your solutions, to the issues your paying for.
I agree with you 100 percent :)
Anarchy is the state of human affairs that remain when government atrophies away.