HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » silvershadow » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40 Next »

silvershadow

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Jul 8, 2004, 03:14 PM
Number of posts: 7,642

Journal Archives

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle:

The Jungle is a 1906 novel written by the American journalist and novelist Upton Sinclair (1878–1968). Sinclair wrote the novel to portray the harsh conditions and exploited lives of immigrants in the United States in Chicago and similar industrialized cities. However, most readers were more concerned with his exposure of health violations and unsanitary practices in the American meatpacking industry during the early 20th century, greatly contributing to a public outcry which led to reforms including the Meat Inspection Act. Sinclair famously said of the public reaction "I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."

The book depicts working class poverty, the lack of social supports, harsh and unpleasant living and working conditions, and a hopelessness among many workers. These elements are contrasted with the deeply rooted corruption of people in power. A review by the writer Jack London called it "the Uncle Tom's Cabin of wage slavery."

Sinclair was considered a muckraker, or journalist who exposed corruption in government and business. In 1904, Sinclair had spent seven weeks gathering information while working incognito in the meatpacking plants of the Chicago stockyards for the newspaper. He first published the novel in serial form in 1905 in the Socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason and it was published as a book by Doubleday in 1906.

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Clintonism screwed the Democrats: How Bill, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council gutted pro

SATURDAY, APR 30, 2016 03:30 PM EDT

Clintonism screwed the Democrats: How Bill, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council gutted progressivism

Imagine there's no Clintons. It's easy if you try! Without pernicious DLC, liberalism is a stronger movement today
PAUL ROSENBERG

Hillary Clinton today promotes herself as a “reformer with results,” and she’s relied on a widespread impression that she and Bernie Sanders aren’t really that far apart on major issues. After the last round of primaries in the Northeast, she expressed it again:

“Because whether you support Senator Sanders or you support me, there’s much more that unites us than divides us. We all agree that wages are too low and inequality is too high, that Wall Street can never again be allowed to threaten Main Street, and we should expand Social Security, not cut or privatize it. We Democrats agree that college should be affordable to all, and student debt shouldn’t hold anyone back.”

Of course, it’s not just Democrats. The points she touched on have broad popular support, despite elite hostility, or at best neglect, which is a large part of why Sanders went from 3% support in the polls to near parity in some April polls .

But Clinton is a skilled politician, so she’s artfully re-aligned herself to blur their differences, with overwhelming support from the elite punditocracy. When the dark side of the Clinton record from 1990s is raised—NAFTA, Defense Of Marriage Act, “welfare reform,” mass incarceration, Wall Street deregulation, etc.—two defenses come readily to mind: “Hillary didn’t do it!/Bill was president” and “times change/you’re forgetting what it was like.”

more: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/clintonism_screwed_the_democrats_how_bill_hillary_and_the_democratic_leadership_council_gutted_progressivism/

Editorial: What Hillary Clinton said behind closed doors

From the Chicago Tribune:

(clip)

The issue here is that Clinton, now a would-be president, earned an extraordinary living giving speeches and making appearances. All transcripts from those activities should be available for public scrutiny, just as all presidential candidates' previous professional work should be open to examination. For example, if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, expect to read a lot more details about his decades in business. And rightly so. Voters deserve to know, and understand, how he made his money.

Why Bernie Sanders will ultimately support Hillary Clinton
Why Bernie Sanders will ultimately support Hillary Clinton
Why are those particular speeches and conversations important for assessing Clinton's candidacy? Because how she presented herself to influential people in a private setting reflected her judgment. Voters are reasonable to ask: How did she handle the situation? Better than Mitt Romney? In 2012 he did himself in by talking disparagingly about low-income people in private to wealthy donors.

We're guessing Clinton made nice with Wall Street and feels uncomfortable about it now. Maybe she said something to damage her credibility among some potential supporters. So be it. Clinton could have avoided scrutiny by finding different work. Instead, she earned big speaking fees based on her experience as a public servant. If she likes that role and wants to be president, she has an obligation to share what she said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-hillary-clinton-speeches-goldman-sachs-edit-0429-jm-20160428-story.html

I'm baaaack...

Ted Cruz is now to the left of Hillary with hist vigorous talk of brining jobs back. nt

Bernie live on MSNBC...look at the crowd! nt

Now Cruz is to the left of Hillary. He's talking about bringing jobs back to Indiana. Wow. nt

Jimmy Carter::

Jimmy Carter:


Call it, Skinner!!!!

(too soon?)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 40 Next »