Thoughts are scattered because life is a bit of a mess these days. Hence the long, long silence between posts.
However, here are a few considerations that are interesting to me:
- In the mouths of certain conservative politicians and Supreme Court Justices, the phrase "States Right" is a gigantic piece of bullshit. Read the following post on the topic, States' rights only count when we feel like it, by Hunter on Daily Kos. (And since I am not writing much these days, make a note to yourselves to follow Hunter's posts on the Daily Kos with devotion: They are goldmines of wisdom dressed with the right amounts of humor and disbelief.)
- Douglas Groothuis's blog on electing Mitt Romney is the expected ragbag of misinformed opinions, laden with hatred and deprived of true substance. When I visit it I don't know whether I should laugh at him or cry at the thought of the harm he is doing to the minds of the people who read him with devotion (but maybe if you see wisdom in Groothuis's political views your mind has already passed the point of no return).
- You should try to adjust your goals in life around what you are passionate about. In other words, do what you are passionate about and build a lifestyle that will allow you to continue doing it, cutting superfluous habits if necessary. If you do the opposite, i.e. pick a career based on what its earnings will enable you to afford, you are doomed to fall into a life of misery sooner or later.
10-4.
Showing posts with label transparency in politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transparency in politics. Show all posts
Monday, June 25, 2012
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Olbermann Dissects The Reality Behind The Republican Small Business Sham
Olbermann, the journalist that false equivalence peddlers/consumers label "the left's Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck" does a masterful job of dismantling the myth that extending Bush's tax cuts would help "small businesses" and their repeal, conversely, would help them.
Watch:
After the lengthy and enlightening introduction, Olbermann then asks tax shenanigans expert David Cay Johnston and reporter Chris Hayes of The Nation to put things in even more perspective.
Again, watch:
Watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
After the lengthy and enlightening introduction, Olbermann then asks tax shenanigans expert David Cay Johnston and reporter Chris Hayes of The Nation to put things in even more perspective.
Again, watch:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Plutocrats v Us
You would think that, in a democracy that equates gargantuan wealth with free speech (see Citizens United v. FEC), the plutocrats who buy amounts of free speech you and I cannot even dream of would not try to hide their identity but would proudly associate their identity with the causes they support. Not so, reports Think Progress.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
These gutless children of Mammon want to protect their right to buy the outcomes of democracy while at the same time preserving their anonimity, alleging that a "chilling effect on the First Amendment" would ensue were they forced by law to disclose their identity when pouring disgusting amounts of money into the political process. Last I checked, the First Amendment protects people's right to speak freely from govermental interference, but it does not come with an attached clause granting the speaker anonimity.
If these disgusting plutocrats want to defend their plutonomy with the wealth they have (often obscenely) accumulated, they should at least have the guts to show their faces in public.
Why, just this week Justice Scalia, one of my least favorite Supreme Court Justices in history, said that "democracy's not for babies", in Doe v. Reed, adding that "for the first century of our existence, even voting was public -- you either did it raising your hand or by voice, or later, you had a ballot that was very visibly red or blue so that people knew which party you were voting for" and that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage. And the First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or even nasty phone calls when you exercise your political rights to legislate, or to take part in the legislative process."
So, it would seem, the First Amendement would not provide plutocrats the right to be shielded from public scrutiny or even denunciation. Even according to Justice Scalia.
This is just the type of issue that you would expect all Americans, including tea-partiers and libertartians, Republicans and Democrats, should take an active interest in. Everyone should write Congress to support the DISCLOSE Act of 2010, to increase the level of transparency of an increasingly muddy democratic process.
Start getting involved, contact your local, state, and federal representatives, and make visits to The Sunlight Foundation and Open Secrets a civic routine in your weekly meanderings on the web.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)