April 30, 2014

What does this phrase, "being brought to justice" mean?

I understand and whole heartedly agree that there is a need to create a deterrence against the commission of certain crimes. I understand and whole heartedly agree that there are some people who pose such a danger to others that their movements must be severely restricted.

But, "being brought to justice" sounds to me like some sort of religious notion. But I have heard this phrase even from the irreligious and even avowed atheist

Aside from creating deterrence and restraining the dangerous - is there some other point to punishment that is defendable in the rational universe? Does punishment satisfy the vengeful wrath of the gods? Does it balance some invisible scale in the universe and make the human condition a bit more just?
.

April 27, 2014

Has there been a MAJOR shift to the left in the political paradigm in the last ten years?

It seems to me that back in the 90's, the New Deal was dead and buried. As President Clinton said, "The era of big government was over." Conservative Democrats who called themselves centrist, third way or "New Democrats" were about as far to the left as you could go in the mainstream of American body politic. And they did actually appear left-wing compared to the alternative. After September 11, 2001 things got expeditiously worse - far worse. And even "New Democrats" hated America according to a narrative that had become completely mainstream. Even cautious policies that would have been previously considered conservative had become defined as far left.

Since then it seems to me that a very positive but gradual shift to a more sound direction has occurred. Now there are voices well to the left of the third way that are working their way into the mainstream of political debate. Now the "liberals hate America" meme that had some sting in 2001 to 2004 has lost most of its audience. Now the awareness that income inequality is reaching the whole country and one is no longer immediately shouted down for pointing out the obvious.

Am I being delusionally optimistic or has their been at least in the terms of public debate an opening to progressive ideas that had largely disappeared in the 90's and were completely marginalized during the first term of the Bush Administration? Am I right in how I am perceiving this?

April 25, 2014

How a 700-page economics book surged to No. 1 on Amazon

"Capital in the Twenty-First Century," at first glance, seems an unlikely candidate to become a best-seller in the U.S. After all, it's 700 pages long, translated from French, and analyzes centuries of data on wealth and economic growth.

But the book, from economist Thomas Piketty, is now No. 1 on Amazon.com's best-seller list, thanks to rave reviews and positive word of mouth. Beyond that, however, the book has something else going for it: "Capital" has hit a nerve with Americans with its message about income inequality.


The main thrust of the book is that, in the jargon of economists, the rate of return on capital has far outstripped the rate of economic growth. The book also portrays the post-World War II period of economic progress across all classes as an anomaly, not the norm.

"When the rate of return of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income, as it did in the nineteenth century and seems quite likely to do again in the twenty-first, capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which which democratic societies are based," Piketty writes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-a-700-page-economics-book-surged-to-no-1-on-amazon/

April 23, 2014

Do you wish you were rich?

I would define rich as having assets of greater than 8 million dollars and an independent after tax net annual income of greater than $300,000. That is approximately what it would take to just make it into the 1%.

April 22, 2014

What do you think would be a fair description of Hillary Clinton's political leanings?

April 17, 2014

Who are the Koch brothers and what do they want? by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, billionaires and large corporations can now spend an unlimited amount of money to influence the political process. The results of that decision are clear. In the coming months and years the Koch brothers and other extraordinarily wealthy families will spend billions of dollars to elect right-wing candidates to the Senate, the House, governors’ mansions and the presidency of the United States. These billionaires already own much of our economy. That, apparently, is not enough. Now, they want to own the United States government as well.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court passed Citizens United. A few weeks ago, they passed the equally horrendous McCutcheon campaign finance decision which gives even more political power to the rich. Now, many Republicans want to push this Supreme Court to go even further. In the name of “free speech,” they want the Court to eliminate all restrictions on campaign spending -- a position that Justice Thomas supported in McCutcheon -- and a view supported by the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Not surprisingly, as it will give them the opportunity to buy politicians at will, this has always been the position of the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers are the second wealthiest family in America, making most of their money in the fossil fuel industry. According to Forbes Magazine, they saw their wealth increase last year from $68 billion to $80 billion. In other words, under the “anti-business”, “socialist” and “oppressive” Obama administration, their wealth went up by $12 billion in one year.

In their 2012 campaigns, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each spent a little more than $1 billion. For the Koch brothers, spending more than Obama and Romney combined in an election would be a drop in the bucket. They would hardly miss the few billion spent.

Given the reality that the Koch brothers are now the most important and powerful players in American politics, it is important to know what they want and what their agenda is.

Interestingly and not widely known, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980. He believed that Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. Despite Mr. Koch putting a substantial sum of money into the campaign, his ticket only received one percent of the vote. Most Americans thought the Libertarian Party’s platform of 1980 was extremist and way out of touch with what the American people wanted and needed.

Fast-forward 34 years and the most significant reality of modern politics is how successful David Koch and like-minded billionaires have been in moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. Amazingly, much of what was considered “extremist” and “kooky” in 1980 has become part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking.

Let me give you just a few examples:

In 1980, Libertarian vice-presidential candidate David Koch ran on a platform that called for abolishing the minimum wage. 34 years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of one percent of the American people.

Today, not only does virtually every Republican in Congress oppose raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage, many of them, including Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell and John McCain, are on record for abolishing the concept of the federal minimum wage.

In 1980, the platform of David Koch’s Libertarian Party favored “the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 34 years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of one percent of the American people.

Today, the mainstream view of the Republican Party, as seen in the recently passed Ryan budget, is to end Medicare as we know it, cut Medicaid by more than $1.5 trillion over the next decade, and repeal the Affordable Care Act. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Under the Ryan plan, at least 40 million people -- 1 in 8 Americans -- would lose health insurance or fail to obtain insurance by 2024. Most of them would be people with low or moderate incomes.”

In 1980, the platform of David Koch’s Libertarian Party called for “the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.” 34 years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of one percent of the American people.

Today, the mainstream view of the Republican Party is that “entitlement reform” is absolutely necessary. For some, this means major cuts in Social Security. For others who believe Social Security is unconstitutional or a Ponzi scheme this means the privatization of Social Security or abolishing this program completely for those who are under 60 years of age.

In 1980, David Koch’s Libertarian Party platform stated “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes … We support the eventual repeal of all taxation … As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.” 34 years ago, that was an extreme view of a fringe party that had the support of one percent of the American people.

Today, 75 Republicans in the House have co-sponsored a bill that Paul Ryan has said “would eliminate taxes on wages, corporations, self-employment, capital gains, and gift and death taxes in favor of a personal-consumption tax.”

Here is what every American should be deeply concerned about. The Koch brothers, through the expenditure of billions of dollars and the creation and support of dozens of extreme right organizations, have taken fringe extremist ideas and made them mainstream within the Republican Party. And now with Citizens United (which is allowing them to pour unlimited sums of money into the political process) their power is greater than ever.

And let’s be very clear. Their goal is not only to defund Obamacare, cut Social Security, oppose an increase in the minimum wage or cut federal funding for education. Their world view and eventual goal is much greater than all of that. They want to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country. Every piece of legislation!

The truth is that the agenda of the Koch brothers is to move this country from a democratic society with a strong middle class to an oligarchic form of society in which the economic and political life of the nation are controlled by a handful of billionaire families.

Our great nation must not be hijacked by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers.

For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we must fight back.

Sincerely,



Senator Bernie Sanders

April 9, 2014

Do you think Sen. Bernie Sanders should run for the Democratic Party nomination for President?

Sen. Sanders has taken a trip to New Hampshire in just the past week to explore the possibility of entering the race for the Democratic Party nomination for President. Yes, we ALL know that he is currently an independent who caucuses and supports the national Democratic Party. So, of course he would have to officially join the Democratic Party to do that. But he wouldn't be going to New Hampshire - the first major partisan primary in the nation to explore an independent race or seek the Green Party nomination or run as Republican, now would he?

This is not a question of whether you would personally support him in the contest for the Democratic Party nomination or think he has good chance of winning - it is a question of whether you think it would be a good thing if he entered the race.

April 7, 2014

Rhode Island Teacher says, "I quit" (video)

Madfloridian's post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024789340 which contrast the Finnish approach to public school teaching to the American approach - brought this video to my mind

April 4, 2014

Should making a jackass of oneself on one occasion wreck someone's career forever?

A world without redemption

I happen to live in a place where a lot of merchant marines pass through the area. There is a bar I sometime frequent popular with the general expat and merchant marine crowd who come ashore for a bit of relaxation and recreation. Just last night one fellow got himself drunk and started to get obnoxious and belligerent - as is not too uncommon on a Friday night in bars anywhere. After being asked a few times to cool it - he was finally asked to leave and then point blank told to leave. Being in a drunk and rowdy state he refused to leave and started to make a scene that disturbed the whole bar. So, naturally the bar manager called the police who quickly came and hauled this obnoxious character off to the local jail. Then interestingly I got in a conversation with one of his shipmates who told me that now the way things are - once the captain of his ship gets wind of this he will be fired within the next few days and sent home. Then on top of all of that - this one occasion will certainly result in him losing his merchant marine clearance and he will never, never, never work on any ships ever again. The fellow telling me this said that it was not always this way. But this is part of the post September 11 world.

I'm all for throwing the guy out of the bar. I'm all for banning him from that and any and all other bars in town. I'm all for throwing him in jail over night or perhaps even a few nights. I'm all for his employer coming down hard on him. If he makes a habit of this sort of thing - I wouldn't fault them too much for firing him. But should one embarrassing night wreck someone's career forever? Now the world of merchant marines is largely protected by a couple of major and very powerful unions. But the unions are powerless when it comes to protecting someone who gets in trouble with the outside local law.

I guess I see this as part of a bigger problem of our brave new world. Even a few decades ago it was possible for someone to get themselves in a whole bunch of trouble - perhaps even a serious crime - But after the person paid whatever penalty for their offense - they could move to a new town - perhaps in a different state and start life all over again. Short of receiving a life in prison without chance of parole sentence - there was almost always a possibility of redemption - a possibility to start over - to forget and bury the past. This new computerized world we live in now creates a permanent record of every debt, every blemish - perhaps every job that didn't work out quite right. And in a world that simply has a lot more people than it has good paying jobs for people - the possibility of permanently wrecking one's chances in life are so much greater than they were before. The possibility of recognizing one's foolish errors and starting life anew in a new job, a new home and new attitude are so much less. Are we creating a world without the possibility of redemption?

April 3, 2014

Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

Smearmaster Glenn Greenwald's smear campaign against George W. Bush

AS they say - haters are going to hate and smearers are going to smear. Glenn Greenwald did not begin his smear career with President Obama - he was doing it way back before Obama came to the White House. It seems that he thinks that just because someone is in powerful position - that they are supposed to be criticized - Imagine that!~!


2008 Bill Moyer interview with Glenn Greenwald about the George W. Bush legacy

http://billmoyers.com/content/glenn-greenwald-on-the-george-w-bush-administration-and-the-rule-of-law/

He also wrote three books about the George W. Bush Administration; The New York Times-bestsellers How Would A Patriot Act? (2006) and Tragic Legacy (2007), and his 2008 release, Great American Hypocrites.[/blockquote]