Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

kpete's Journal
kpete's Journal
April 3, 2014

Organize on the ground to demand the change desired and the money can be overcome.

The Money
April 3, 2014 | Erik Loomis

...........Liberals need to quit whining about the money. I’m not saying the case isn’t a big deal. It is. But I am saying that the plutocrats have always had far more money than working people and they’ve always used it to control politics the best they can. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the corporate control over politics was far greater than today and working people organized on the ground to demand all sorts of changes that led to creation of the 20th century welfare state. The decline of unions and voices for the working class thanks to capital mobility and more aggressive corporate activism undermined these 20th century victories and has created a new Gilded Age in this country. Naturally, that’s going to include corporate control over elections. Such a decision is a symptom of larger problems, a result of American democratic decline, not a cause.

The problem today is that progressives believe the ballot box is where change is made, when in fact it is where change is consolidated. Organize on the ground to demand the change desired and the money can be overcome. But if you think a social movement is buying ad time on television or the right kind of media messaging, that’s a game that progressives are never going to win.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/04/the-money

April 3, 2014

I must be an "Un-American" then, cuz I don't "understand"

Charles Koch Hits Back Against 'Un-American' Attacks:

"Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards," he continued.

The billionaire businessman argued he has no need or patience for political favors, touting his corporation's environmental and jobs record.

"Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them," Koch wrote. "I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished."


the rest:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charles-koch-hits-back-at-unamerican-attacks



Rupert Murdoch purchased the WSJ and someone found themselves left behind, deep in the bowels of media hell. Somehow, they've retained their wicked sense of humor.




**************************








April 3, 2014

We’re Not No. 1! "The USA has done better at investing in drones than in children"

We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1!
APRIL 2, 2014

Nicholas Kristof

We in the United States grow up celebrating ourselves as the world’s most powerful nation, the world’s richest nation, the world’s freest and most blessed nation.

....................................

In some ways we indisputably are, but a major new ranking of livability in 132 countries puts the United States in a sobering 16th place. We underperform because our economic and military strengths don’t translate into well-being for the average citizen.

In the Social Progress Index, the United States excels in access to advanced education but ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety. Even in access to cellphones and the Internet, the United States ranks a disappointing 23rd, partly because one American in five lacks Internet access.

“It’s astonishing that for a country that has Silicon Valley, lack of access to information is a red flag,” notes Michael Green, executive director of the Social Progress Imperative, which oversees the index. The United States has done better at investing in drones than in children, and cuts in social services could fray the social fabric further.


the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/were-not-no-1-were-not-no-1.html?emc=edit_th_20140403&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=10489823&_r=1

April 3, 2014

Next Month, Harvey Milk Commemorative Stamp

Next Month, Harvey Milk Commemorative Stamp
Jsk7fzjq1oujnmszuqci




I can't say it's terribly surprising given where the country is today. And it probably doesn't hurt that there's a Democratic president. But still ... Harvey Milk commemorated on a US Postage stamp.

Bigger pic:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/next-month-harvey-milk-commemorative-stamp

April 3, 2014

LOL: The time Karl Rove “proved” Obamacare would never reach 7m sign-ups

just one week ago, Karl Rove even brought out his “white board” to “prove” that the 7 million sign-ups were impossible.




https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2587865677/C0DCD825-D47C-4159-B622-AC33F10EFB9B_biggerJohn Aravosis
?@aravosis
The time Karl Rove “proved” Obamacare would never reach 7m sign-ups // just 1 week ago http://americablog.com/2014/04/time-karl-rove-proved-obamacare-never-reach-7m-sign-ups.html … pic.twitter.com/w4KiM4rbk3




Karl Rove on Fox News, 3/24/14:

“There is no way they’re gonna get anywhere close. It just ain’t gonna happen.”


http://americablog.com/2014/04/time-karl-rove-proved-obamacare-never-reach-7m-sign-ups.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog+News+%29
April 2, 2014

Justice Breyer Dissent: "Where enough money calls the tune-the general public will not be heard"

from Justice Breyer notes in his dissent:

...the First Amendment advances not only the individual's right to engage in political speech, but also the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.

What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary "chain of communication" between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point. That is one reason why the Court has stressed the constitutional importance of Congress' concern that a few large donations not drown out the voices of the many.


more:
http://prospect.org/article/roberts-court-government-must-be-and-wealthy
April 2, 2014

To the Roberts Court, money should talk as loudly as possible while ordinary voters can take a walk.

.........there is a particularly cruel irony about the Roberts Court’s attack on campaign finance reform in cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United. On the one hand, the Court is making it nearly impossible for Congress or state legislatures to reduce the influence of money in politics, holding restrictions unconstitutional even in cases where they don’t suppress speech at all. On the other hand, the Court has been extremely hostile to the voting rights. On the one hand, they’ve upheld vote suppression at the state level even when these restrictions are directed at concededly non-existent problems. On the other hand, they’ve eviscerated the Voting Rights Act with an opinion that finds no discernible basis in the text of the Constitution or the Court’s precedents. To the Roberts Court, money should talk as loudly as possible while ordinary voters can take a walk.

more:
http://prospect.org/article/roberts-court-government-must-be-and-wealthy

April 2, 2014

Court Ruling May Only Help GOP In Short Run: "A short-term money advantage doesn't last forever."



First Read: "On its surface, the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision striking down aggregate campaign-finance limits appears like a winner for the Republican Party... But here's an important reminder about all of that money: It doesn't always buy you victory."

"As it turned in 2012, President Barack Obama and Democrats won in that election cycle, because what might matter more than overall money is parity -- spending is neutralized when one party doesn't hold a unilateral advantage."


"And then there's how the political parties adapt to these campaign-finance changes. After the McCain-Feingold law, which banned unlimited 'soft money' to the political parties, Democrats and Barack Obama created an army of small-dollar donors, who helped their victories in 2008 and 2012."

"Which all hits at this campaign-finance truth: A short-term money advantage doesn't last forever."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/campaign-cash-ruling-boosts-gop-now-n69786

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 72,040
Latest Discussions»kpete's Journal