dreamnightwind
dreamnightwind's JournalA good idea, what about foundations and the like?
The oligarchs accumulate wealth to use it to shape the world with their own ideas as much as to pass it on to their kids. I would like a world shaped by the interests of those whose needs are not met not by the ideas of people who have never known such needs, can't understand them in any tangible way, and in many cases, as you suggest, just view less fortunate people as losers.
So my point here is we would also need a way to curb this kind of influence. they create foundations and institutions to shape the world to their liking that persist long after they leave this earth. Inheritance won't touch that. A maximum wage, or better a cap on total compensation, some way of preventing this wealth from accumulating to that degree in the first place, might have a better shot at returning the balance of power from the few very rich to democratically run institutions.
The other component of course is putting the democracy back in government. Another current OP had a link down thread to this study, I'll just paste here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251724264#post52
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=e40d65fc61c134913e3ad43a422129d3
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
The fix to this of course is public funding of elections, and ending revolving door relationships between government and industry.
There's a lot to do, and it will all be difficult to achieve. It starts by identifying the tasks, electing a leader who believes in them (Bernie for the win), and fighting like hell no matter how many times we are defeated.
Thanks for posting this link
I had seen it before and lost track of it, and the linked study in the article is amazingly well written and researched. Should be required reading.
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS12_03%2FS1537592714001595a.pdf&code=e40d65fc61c134913e3ad43a422129d3
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Hang in there
It's a long game, and if we persist, and persist on principle, we shall see what happens. Things get better just in the act of our persistence.
The recent gains by Hillary are substantial, and are entirely the product of the powers that be. The debate was rigged to minimize rather than illuminate the differences in the candidates, with a room packed by DNC invitation only, a DNC head who is head off Hillary's Florida campaign, a moderator who is or was on the Clinton Global Initiative payroll, and endless MSM pundits hell-bent on marginalizing the "socialist" in their post-debate analysis, extolling Hillary's presence and competence while ignoring the peril of her third way corporatist and imperial policies.
The Benghazi hearing was a great showcase for Hillary, she was given a platform to show her competence, intelligence, and fortitude (all unquestionable IMO, I've never doubted any of these attributes of hers) while completely ignoring the very real issues behind the Libya debacle, and the Syria debacle, and Hillary's large role in both of them. That all fits the agenda of the powers that be.
Many good threads on this right now, among them:
ONE simple fact: Benghazi was a covert CIA op under direction of Gen. Petraeus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027277145
Ignoring U.S. Destabilization of Libya, GOP Benghazi Hearing Asks Clinton All the Wrong Questions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027282512
Also Hillary is now spending money on ad buys, which is the lifeblood of the MSM, and effectively propagandizes the low-information public.
We're up against long odds, and we've always known it. That being said, we have Bernie and the truth on our side, and an American public who is very far down the creek the corporate owners of both parties have thrown them into, so people are more ripe for a real candidate who speaks truth to power and will represent their interests more than the interests of the large campaign donors. So therein lies our opportunity. Also climate change, with its oncoming horror, collapses the business as usual arguments.
We will lose many fights before winning, if we ever win. The fights do make a difference, people get educated and are more receptive when future battles are waged. And we have Bernie, probably the best candidate I have ever had the opportunity to support.
K & R, can't rec this enough
"What was learned was irrelevant," Goodman says. "What was relevant, wasn't discussed."
Same as it ever was. It sickens me to watch this, and to watch DU members rally to her side as if she's the most incredible republican-eating warrior we've ever had. They completely miss the point, as usual, and by design of the powers that be. Suckers all.
Though it isn't the same (the Republicans are comically inept and only interested in political gain), it reminds me of the Iran - Contra hearings in th 80's. Great crimes were committed by the intersection of U.S. politicians, CIA, and paramilitary assets. They were caught doing their dirty deeds, and a congressional hearing was held. The important questions about what was going on were conveniently not asked, and the principle witness and war criminal, Oliver North, was glorified as he skillfully navigated the faux hearing and presented himself as a tireless defender of the good ol' U.S. of A.
To watch our own members fall for the same rush of patriotism and partisan hero-worship for Hillary's ability to hold up in the hearing is really sad.
Our activities in Libya are a great example of why I cannot support Hillary Clinton, and I hope more Democrats can get their heads out of their anti-republican fervor to see the world-view they are buying into.
Don't be fooled people, this is how people get sucked into the wrong road. Being the best at this game is nothing to be proud of. The whole stinking game is the problem, and it's not a game, it's the destroyed lives of millions of innocents in every corner of the earth as the military industrial complex keeps the world safe for global fossil fuel extraction, destroying our environment and bringing vast wealth to a few greedy industrialists who increase their portfolios as the planet becomes uninhabitable and war breaks out all around.
Please, everyone, we have to be better than this, there is a lot on the line and it's now or never to get things right.
I am quite aware of all that, I simply have no problem with it whatsoever
We need a second party, not a third. If the Democratic Party won't step up and represent their constitutents, but instead represent their funders, they make their own problems.
Sanders is providing a model of how to win without being so compromised that it becomes a hollow victory.
It's a pity that Hillary won't forgo her corporate funding and SuperPac's in the primary, there is no legitimate excuse for using such tactics. I can see (but do not agree with) justifications for using all means necessary in the general since the Republicans will be taking dirty money in with both hands, but Bernie isn't and won't, so there's no acceptable reason for Hillary to do so in the primary, other than she has no principles except for power.
The candidate who could create your nightmare scenario of Greens or socialists getting their 5% (why does this bother you?) is, of course, Sanders himself, should he go 3rd party to carry on the movement he has built. He has a remarkable record of loyalty to the Democratic Party even as theey fight him, but seeing the way the DNC and Hillary's surrogates have rigged the game against him, and the overwhelming response he is getting from the people, who knows what will happen.
The triangulating corporatists have forever been telling the left that we have nowhere to go but to vote for them, with their snarky smiles as they enjoy our futility. I won't forget.
For the record I did not support the Nader movement, I thought he was an excellent consumer advocate but not a serious politician. Sanders is nothing like that. Our party needs to choose if it stands for anything or not, and this time we have a clear and viable choice.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for this thoughtful OP
Best of luck to you in your struggles, I am going through much the same, only different.
I tend to look at these things from a system level rather than a personal one, and the radicalizing issue for me is climate change, which would benefit by electing someone who doesn't believe in ramping the capitalist beast up to warp speed but who prioritizes living in harmony with people and ecosystems. Sanders isn't perfect on this issue, but he's a bold step in the right direction and isn't bound by campaign funding to support anyone from the fossil fuel extraction and transportation industries.
You articulately discussed many other important reasons for changing our political direction, they're important and I don't mean to diminish them in any way, just adding my own focus to the discussion, I think climate change is the defining challenge of our time.
Bernie's our best choice on most every issue, at least among serious candidates running national campaigns. And our society is heading down a very dark road, with fascist elements supported by a surveillance, police, and military machine historically unprecendented, as we ravage our environment while a few uber-rich people make plans for their personal prosperity as everything around them collapses. It's obvious which candidates are on which side of those issues, and noone should pretend otherwise.
I was in Santa Cruz near the epicenter
It was my then-girlfriend's 40th bday (she was quite a bit older than I was) and I was driving from work to meet her and her family to celebrate at her house, and watch the World Series together. Everything changed in that moment. I pulled my VW van to the side of the road thinking it was just falling apart (not out of the question, LOL), the street lamp posts were literally making a howling sound from the violent shaking, a chimney collapsed and flattened a pickup truck right in front of me, unreal. Seemed like it lasted forever but it was probably less than a minute (don't remember the exact duration). When I got to her house her poor Mom was in the kitchen trying to deal with it all, a huge pot of spaghetti sauce had been tossed all over the kitchen and gave everything a faux bloody vibe, anything that wasn't bolted down was tossed all over the place, not good but others had it worse and lost their homes completely and a few lost their lives.
Santa Cruz's downtown was in shambles for years (businesses moved their stores into giant tents), we had no power for days, no phones, no communications but word of mouth and whatever we could get from AM radio. Many of the local bridges were damaged so travel to get anywhere was pretty much impossible. I mostly rode my bike for awhile because of that.
Some people slept outside on their lawns for a few nights as the aftershocks just kept coming, one after another, and we didn't know if the really big one was still on the way. I lived in a small geodesic dome (I used to get some of Steve Wozniak's mail there, apparently he had lived in that little house before I did, odd, it was really tiny but secluded so maybe he liked that) where I slept in the loft. The aftershocks were somehow so loud (I still don't understand this) that I could be asleep, hear one coming, scramble down the loft ladder and be just about out the front door by the time one hit.
I hope I never experience anything like that again. Before that, I always laughed at earthquakes, they were kind of fun and mostly harmless in my experience. To no longer trust the earth beneath your feet is an odd feeling, one that persisted for quite awhile.
edit to add: happy b-day to my ex, if she is reading this, she was a good Democrat so who knows.
Other than the "blew it" part, I totally agree
Excellent points by Scheer. Bernie needs to hire him or someone like him, maybe Reich too if Reich would sign up, to work on his messaging. It isn't enough to be right on the issues and assume the public will figure it all out. Many people are just looking for convenient "outs" to go along to get along with the Clinton inevitability train, and if they see her as mostly on the same side of the issues as Bernie (which she is not), they will vote for her.
Bernie is admirably reluctant to go after Hillary, he doesn't want to damage her candidacy in any way. I think he made that decision before running, when he was given little chance of even waging a competitive campaign.
Things have change, the U.S. is Berning, and he needs to step up and play to win. He can't ddo that unless he's willing to directly call out and illuminate the stark differences betweeen himself and Hillary. The policies of Bill's presidecy should absolutely be part of the mix, let her refute them and show how she disagrees with those policies if she wants. We all know a Hillary presidency would involve basically the same neoliberal economic agenda as Bill's presidency, and on foreign policy she is at least as hawkish as Bill, much more so in my opinion.
The establishment plays to win. They'll use every weapon at their disposal to maintain their grip on the U.S. economy and military. Time to take off the gloves and do this. The people will respond, Bernie's on the correct side of the issues, but he must also make it cear that Hillary is not.
Good question. What I would like to see:
is an internet-based alternative to the MSM. I see it as a battle for the content being displayed on the main TV/monitor in the average family's living room.
I hate the MSM as much as anyone, but even I, as I sit here typing, have my TV on in the background, running MSM with disgusting Chris Matthews and what passes for conventonal wisdom blaring into my space. It keeps me informedd on what is going on in the real world, but as we all know, its perspective is largely that of its owners. Totally sucks.
I had a decent alternative till Google ruined it. I have a "smart DVD player" that has apps that stream content to my TV/monitor. The old Youtube app used to stream new programming from my Youtube channel subscriptions, which was a pretty decent MSM alternative.
Unfortunately after Google bought Youtube they invalidate the old Youtube app oon these devices, and brught onlie a new Google Youtube app that doesn't operate in the same way. It mixes in ads (at much greater volume, ruining it), and somehow won't stick to streaming new content from subscribed Youtube channels, instead jumping around to "recommended" videos based o what they see as my interests. Totally sucks, it often throws in things I would never watch, and adds them to my Youtube watch history, etc.
Anyway, it's all there on the internet, we just need a conveniently streamed aggregator of clips from our preferred sources. No ads. If it intersperses recommended content, that should either be highly customizable or it should be able to be disabled.
I say the proper app that would run on smart TV's, DVD players, phones capable of casting the content to the TV, or the like, could fully repllace the MSM in people's living rooms. Maybe this already exists and I'm not aware, but if it does it has yet to establish itself as an available choice in the average home's viewing area. It needs to, and it would change everything.
The last thing I will add is that I think the concept of streaming clips is where it's at. I usually do other things while I "watch" and don't bother to browse around to different websites to click on clips to watch. It needs to just effortlessly come at me based on what I tell it I am interested in. A "keep in touch" featire would also be great, so you could say "devote 20% (configurable) of content to current events from these acceptable sources" and it would throw in what's hot at that moment every once in awhile, or likewise a "contrary view" feture where it would mix in a configurable percent of content from sources you don't agree with but would like to keep tabs on.
Thank you
The thing that saddened me most about the recent debate was how it largely failed to tease apart the very real differences between the candidates, leaving viewers with the feeling that they are mostly in agreement with subtle fine-hair differences. That is simply not the case. It's like using voting records to judge them by. The voting records don't accurately illuminate the differences, because the framework of what those votes are is shamefully missing any real reform legislation.
There's a large and very substantial difference between Hillary and Bernie. They're not fighting for the same world view or similar policies derived from those world views. One is a multinational capitalist and the other is a democratic socialist/populist with little interest in using U.S. blood and treasure to leverage corporate interest in every nook and cranny of the earth.
Now if we could just get Bernie to come out as wanting to ramp-down and eventually end the drone killings. Some work to do there. He'd probably be better than Hillary or a Republican in this regard but still seems to be willing to use remote killing as a way to avoid getting bogged down into long entangled conflicts, instead of championing the need to operate under a new paradigm of running a country rather than an empire.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleCurrent location: northern California
Member since: Fri Jan 26, 2007, 08:20 PM
Number of posts: 4,775
