Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Thursday, September 6, 2018

My Attitude and The Gallary of Grim News

The Gallary of Grim News: Progressive?

Since 2003 I've been following progressive media. They don't hesitate to report on the real issues that the main-stream media ignore at the behest of their corporate masters. You can find them on my Sources Page under "Alternative Media."

If your life is going well and you have achieved the American Dream, there's a chance you might not keep it for very long. Most of us have already lost.

I hear that my only recourse legally is voting, but I also hear that voting has been rigged. I hear the call for rallies and protests, but rallies and protests are met with violent opposition and police action.

I hear that outspoken activists get death threats and are potentially blacklisted from employment opportunities. I hear about all the things corporations get away with at the expense of their own workers and the taxpayers. I hear how politicians are legally bribed. I hear about possible threats to protected classes of people.

All I can do is cast a vote, crawl into a hole and pray. Listening to these people fills me with a sense of hopelessness. I was being ground into the dirt, but then I realized something. These people make a living doing what they do. They have an incentive to make things seem as bad as possible, not necessarily as bad as things really are.

They may be telling the truth, but are they exaggerating? Is most of it hyperbole? Do they spend as much time reporting the facts as they do speculating about the outcome? Not really. Many of them make all manner of extrapolation.

I'm cutting myself off from this clutch of Chicken Little Lefties, but I'm not going to join the Pollyannas on the right either. How many times over the last decade has some politician claimed there was a constitutional crisis or an eminent economic collapse? Too many for me to listen anymore.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Vetting a Congress That Will Support Bernie Sanders



Progressive Democrats of America
Goes as far as mentioning Living Wage Jobs, but not quite as far as demanding a $15 per hour minimum wage, or a minimum weekly schedule of no less than 35 hours.

Wikipedia
See the members of the advisory board, staff, consultants, and reference links to GovTrack.org

In These Times
It looks like PDA is trying to take the bulk of the credit for getting Bernie Sanders into the main-stream spotlight.

Facebook
Lots of pro-Bernie stuff. Maybe they're genuine.

The Atlantic
The Establishment Party begins to slip up and rear its ugly head. We must weed out the infiltrators of the true progressive caucus.

American Prospect
There are Oligarchs who can't see the consequences of their actions that led to the French and Russian revolutions, then there are those who know they can keep their crowns and heads by appeasing the masses.
It's less than a year away from the general election. If Bernie wins he still faces a majority of Establishment politicians in the House of Representatives and Senate. What are Establishment Politicians?

The Establishment is a bi-partisan coalition of House and Senate members that favors local and Wall Street billionaires. In other words, both Democrats and Republicans that work on behalf of their donors instead of all their voters.

You can visit opensecrets.org and look up your congress member's donors.
You want candidates running in your district who have the largest number of small individual contributions, those are the candidates who are beholden to all of the people.

The candidates who receive very large donations from a small number of donors, or are supported by Super PACs are beholden to the elite few with lots of money.

Also see VoteSmart.org



Friday, November 6, 2015

COM: Politics and Media Out Of Control


MEDIA
OUT OF
CONTROL
Politico
This is where it all started. It was assumed that Ben Carson actually received a scholarship, but in reality he said he was only offered a scholarship.

USA Today
The original headline was "Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point story, report says" Interesting that USA Today felt the need to change their own headline.

The Washington Post
Here it's explained that Ben Carson was offered a scholarship but didn't take it.

The Washington Post
Here the author states "Ben Carson's admission Friday to Politico that he had not been offered and accepted a full scholarship to West Point could be a major problem for a presidential candidate whose appeal is almost entirely built on his remarkable personal story."

The Daily Caller
The Daily Caller has earned itself space on my list of sources. Politico never made it.
So this is how politicians can bait the media with ambiguous statements, then turn around and attack the media, pointing at the media's sloppy false inferences,

Did this really happen? Was it intentional? There's no way to prove it, but the media is at fault for not doing its homework anyway.

Either way the damage is done to the candidate. The graphics popping up all over the Internet that are mocking the candidate, possibly for something he never did or said, won't go away anytime soon.

News outlets must answer not only for parroting the original story, but now changing their own headlines after the fact to cover up their laziness.

The schadenfreude and groupthink of the media needs to be checked.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Media Revolt


Is the pervasive activity of the Internet always fact-checking the main-stream media starting to change the behavior of the newspaper, TV and radio pundits?

The surge of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump seems to be unmitigated by the din of false propaganda and sycophancy supporting the establishment candidates.

The main-stream "journalists" just might be seeing the writing on the wall, but they are conflicted by the necessary evil of appealing to political candidates who have the most campaign money to spend on advertising.

After all, Hillary has a lot more money than Bernie Sanders, so of course media outlets are drooling at Hillary's feet. With a wink and a nod they shamelessly report she is winning all the debates, even debates in which she never participated.


Friday, August 14, 2015

Bernie vs Hillary: A list of resources

Here are the two leading Democrats for POTUS 2016. It's up to you to decide between them. Don't let the Main-Stream Corporate Media decide for you.

Bernie Sanders

Hillary Clinton
BallotPedia BallotPedia
Govtrack Govtrack
Open Secrets (2016 Race) Open Secrets (2016 Race)
VoteSmart Voting Record VoteSmart Voting Record

Saturday, August 1, 2015

About Bernie Sanders: A few stories and a bunch of site search results



Corporate Democrats Are Waking Up to Bernie as a "Credible Threat"


I was listening to the Mike Malloy podcast from Thursday and Friday and at one point he started talking about how the political smear machine from the "Corporate Democrats" was starting to warm up, so I did some digging.

It might be too early because it's Saturday. The Sunday morning TV news shows might step-up the mud-slinging.

One author at the New Republic is still clinging to the idea that Bernie has a race problem, and now has an immigrant problem.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

The Burden of Nobility

Ask a politician this question: "Who said 'those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it?" What kind of response would you get? I wondered who really said it first so I searched the Internet assuming it came from someone like Plato or Socrates.

I was stunned that the earliest form I could find was the twentieth century philosopher George Santayana. He also said "Only the dead see the end of wars." Now that explains a hell of a lot about politics. It explains why empires continue to rise and fall over and over again throughout history.

Regulations in the United States are created in the aftermath of tragedy, not for the sake of tragedy itself, but for the dividend of political popularity. Ironically, those most insulated from the tragedies which regulatory change can mitigate are those rich enough to afford the expense of running for political office. One example of cashing in on populism for the right reasons calls into question the motivations of President Lyndon Johnson.

Conservatives appear to believe they are acting in the best interest of the public, making hard, often unpopular decisions. Most of them are high-level executives, entrepreneurs and farmers, supporting themselves, being their own bosses. They feel that the public is weakened into a state of slothfulness by government handouts.

They appear to believe that everyone can aspire to such independence as they themselves achieve. However they overlook the obvious privilege of their "higher" social circles that got them the opportunities they enjoy, hence the title of Nobility in this context.

They apparently are also very comfortable enjoying a business climate with fewer competitors than they would have if public education was geared toward self-sufficient entrepreneurship instead of labor.

These very same employers desire to pay as little as possible for labor and engage in political activity that prevents the increase in the minimum wage and impedes educational progress in order to maintain a labor surplus of low-skilled or unskilled workers. Then they blame the "unwashed masses" for their shortcomings and lament the absence of skilled workers.

They can't comprehend their own low-wage employees (who do all the work) living each day only one health care crisis or one car breakdown away from homelessness. They seek to roll back the social safety nets that were put in place in the aftermath of the Great Depression. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, school lunch programs and housing subsidies.

Some of them must have relatives who are disabled through no fault of their own. Apparently they are well taken care of through private means. Otherwise they would be more sympathetic to people on Social Security Disability Income.

They seem to think that Wall Street can handle the surplus cash in the Social Security fund, despite the long history of financial crises.

Invariably those who cannot see the suffering of the public will make political propositions that serve their own interests, and be as baffled by the public backlash as Mitt Romney was at the 2012 election.

The burden on the back of the "Nobility" is a mishmash of contradictions and disingenuous piety. They have forgotten the consequences of their greed throughout history. The continuous cycle of collapsing empires and nations was stifled once by The New Deal between 1933 and 1938.

It doesn't look like another New Deal is around the corner yet. We must wait for the next tragedy before we get the attention of the nobility, or get rid of them. It's really up to them after all as it was the French in 1787, and the Russians starting in 1905.