BrentWil
BrentWil's JournalThis is Extreme Wealth Inequality: How Does One Fix This?
THis is extreme Wealth Inequality.
What policy/policies are needed to "fix" this? What does the "fix" look like? What is the endstate for wealth distribution?
OWS isn't a Relevant Movement to Change Society and May Hurt Us More then It Helps Us
Mic Check....
OWS gets a lot of love on DU. However, it isn't a relevant movement. For a movement to be relevant, it has to capture the hearts and minds of the society. A protest movement is an insurgency, in a way. It has to figure out a way to shape its message in a way that the society adopts the protesters values and political views.
Protest movements are most effective when they use civil disobedience to highlight state polices that are not just. Two key examples of this are Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Gandhi with his Satyagrah and Martin Luther King with his nonviolence, practiced one thing that OWS will never have: Discipline and leadership.
OWS claims it is a leaderless organization by own admission. And it does not have a clear set of goals. As such, it does not have the ability to enforce behavior standards on its members, as both Gandhi and King did. The recent flag burning is evidence of this. While certainly their right, it marginalizes the movement in the minds of the society. Moreover, movements need clear demands. It is not good enough to simply state that “we are the 99%” One must present a consent message to the population and that message has to have cultural relevance. OWS has neither the discipline or organization to be a relevant force in changing how our society fundamentally works.
Leadership, even flawed leadership, is the path towards change. Both King and Gandhi had flaws. However, what the did provide was someone that people perceived as having the moral authority to speak and organize their respective movements. While the OWS movement may be filled with many smart capable people with good intention, without organization and focus it will fail. Without someone coming out and condemning “flag burning”, the movement will look like “a bunch of America haters” to the very people OWS should focus their message on.
The simple message that “this level of wealth inequality is unhealthy” and educating the population on the actual level of inequality would be a start. However, to do this effectively, one has to be focused and disciplined. Moreover, one needs to find means to speak to a larger segment of American society. In sum, OWS needs leadership and discipline to do this. Without it, OWS runs the risk of hurting more then it helps. Moreover, whatever message they do have, they will be taken apart by their enemies which do have both leadership and discipline.
I hope to be proved wrong.
Is the average GOP Primary Voter a Racist and Homophobe?
Not everyone in the GOP is Racist and a Homophobe. However, would it be fair to describe the average GOP primary voter a racist and homophobe?
Four years ago I would have said, no way. Today, I really think that is a fair way to describe them. It really has become a very ugly political party.
Has anyone seen any polling data or news on the Nevada Caucuses
I found the NY Times Story interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/us/politics/hardship-has-changed-nevada-since-2008-caucuses.html
The economic and political changes of the past four years have established Nevada as a major battleground this fall, while adding some unpredictability to the Republican caucuses on Saturday. Mr. Romney is widely viewed as being in a strong position to win again this time, partly because he is a Mormon, and Mormons are expected to make up slightly more than a quarter of the electorate.
But the intensity of Tea Party activists in Nevada, fueled by the relentless economic downturn here, suggests the state might offer the Tea Party one of its final chances to block Mr. Romney. Ron Paul is focusing on Nevada at the expense of other states, while Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are competing intensely for Tea Party backers. On Wednesday, Mr. Santorum released an advertisement here that attacked Mr. Gingrich for supporting the Wall Street bailouts, describing them as “a slap in the face of the Tea Party.”
This seems to be sleeper. However in a Caucus and in the same state that brought us Sharron Angle, that they are going to go for Mitt. What does Newts organization look like? Does Santorum have a chance?
The Iranian Debate: Right, Left or Middle the American public is totally inept even discussing Iran
This country may or may not go to war with Iran. What happens will happen. However, my question here is on the debate to go to war. The American people are not informed enough about the workings of Iran to even comment on the country.
As evidence , I would like to discuss the Office of the Iranian President. In this country, the debate concerning Iranian actions aways seems to focus on the current Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. If one has a basic knowledge of the Iranian State, one understands the key decision maker is the Supreme Leader, who is currently Khamenei. If he does have competition for power in the Iranian State, it isn't from he President. It is from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The President has only very limited domestic power. The former "liberal" President Khatami had extremely limited ability to produce domestic reforms, such as allowing a little more cultural expression. Moreover, anyone that runs for President is approved by Guardian Council and has deep regime ties. In sum, the office of President of Iran is mostly non relevant besides very limited domestic power.
With that said, why does the debate on both the left and right focus on Ahmahinejad? Why can't Americans understand that systems work differently and just because you have the title "President" doesn't mean you have power in a society? Moreover, why is it even relevant to listen to the public debate on Iran?
Why I put my faith in President Obama over the Occupy Movement any day, any place and any time....
President Obama has brought this country massive change, at least in terms of our system. Health care, for example, is a step forward in getting price inflation under control and expanding coverage. We no longer have any Soldiers in Iraq. I could go on, but you get the point. I would argue that he has produced a good deal of change and has accomplished many reforms that were/are possible.
The occupy movement, on the other hand, has accomplish nothing. Its “leaderless” movement is cute, but in the real world it does very little. While some suggest revolution, this is unfortunate. First, we do have elections in this country. Simply because one cannot get the majority of the people or even the majority of democrats to agree with you isn’t a very good reason for revolution. This isn’t the “Arab Spring” where people can rally people around gaining a voice. Unfortunately, people do have a voice now. We just disagree with many of them. It takes hard work and effort to win them over. The vast majority of revolutions hurt the people they are supposed to help.
I will take change within the system any day. Does it require actual work and leaders? No question. It is a marathon. The occupy movement is trying to be sprint. However, it is a sprint on a treadmill and isn’t going anywhere. I will continue to move forward the way we have always done it. One painful step at a time.
The most practical response to Citizens United: Abolish Campaign Finance Laws
Public financing isn't going to happen. THe best realistic means to reform these laws is to simply abolish them, allow anyone to give whatever they want and have the simple requirement of transparency. That way, candidates will get funded without selling their views (There will be sugar daddies for a wide range of views), the public knows who is funding what, and the system will not have all these secrete groups. Actual campaigns will spend the money.
If people running for office don't have to walk though a complex system that doesn't work, better people will run. It cost too much money for someone to try to run today because of this complex system. Just make it simple and easy. The only law should be transparency.
Newt and Moon Colonies: Wouldn't a Colony on Mars make a heck a lot more sense?
I only mention this because a major Presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich, said that he thought a moon colony was a good idea and the moon could become a State if it got 50K people. While that idea may be crazy, lets just assume that it isn't for a second.
Mars has an atmosphere and water. Moreover, if you went to Mars to stay, it wouldn't be that expensive, at least compared to a Moon Colony. Mars to stay is actually an idea that might work ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay ) , at least when compared to a Colony on the Moon. The major reason is because more of the basic pieces are already there to become self sufficient.
Should Free Speech include Hate Speech?
First, I understand the current constitution and how the first amendment is enforced. The current standard is what it is and it would take a constitutional amendment to really change it.
With that being said, America does have the most extreme interpretation of free speech in the world. If you compare our laws to other European countries, for example ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech ) many societies actually do limit hate speech and sometimes people can face criminal penalties including jail time.
So the question is, is our current protection of freedom of speech the best or should freedom of speech be interpreted with more limitations, in an ideal world?
How Likely is a War with Iran if President Obama is Re-elected?
On other threads I have been beaten up because I suggest that war with Iran is a possibility, whoever is elected President. I have made this suggestion not because I want war, but because I am looking at statements from the Defense Secretary and from President Obama. On 60 minutes, Secretary Panetta made statements that go well over the normal diplomatic speak for, "we really don't like this"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57345322/panetta-iran-will-not-be-allowed-nukes/
Panetta: Well, we share the same common concern. The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us and that's a red line, obviously, for the Israelis. If we have to do it we will deal with it.
Pelley: You just said if we have to do it we will come and do it. What is it?
Panetta: If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.
Pelley: Including military steps?
Panetta: There are no options off the table
Pelley: A nuclear weapon in Iran is...
Panetta: Unacceptable.
THis is followed by the President's State of the Union, which had some reasonable strong wording.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. (Applause.)
But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.
When put together, this tells me that the Administration really is looking at all options for Iran and that war isn't an impossibility, if the President is re-elected. The other element is that Sunni Arab countries in the region would really like to keep Iran from getting the bomb. They would be the most likely partners in this, I would think.
If I had to put a number on it, I would say that we have between a 10 and 20 percent chance of war with Iran under a second term with President Obama.
Let me be clear, I think this is far better then the GOP entering the White House. Iran is a serious security problem and I trust the President to handle it and I think he will handle it by bring together allies and regional friends to deal with the problem . However, I would suggest that war is still a possibility with Iran, even with the re-election of the President.
Stating that fact doesn't mean that I love war. It means I am trying to describe the World as it is, not as I want it to be.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Apr 25, 2010, 10:54 PMNumber of posts: 2,384