In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court conservatives struck down some of the last remaining limits on how much wealthy donors can donate to electoral campaigns. The reason, they claim, is freedom of speech. FREEDOM OF SPEECH? How can donating large sums of money to a candidate, who takes that money and pays Hollywood to make an entertainment spectacle full of emotion and not small amounts of misinformation, slanted (by the way) towards the political and or social position of the donator of the large sums of money, which a great percentage of American people sitting comfortably in their lazy boys with a beer in their hand interprets as FACTUAL. . . be called freedom of speech?
With those limits gone, it will be even harder for everyday people to have their voices heard in Washington.
I’m all for freedom of speech but I don’t believe buying a politician is freedom of speech. Let the Koch brothers spend lots of money, go on TV, identify themselves and speak. That would be freedom of speech. The way it’s done now deceives all the bumpkins whose major form of recreation (and for some, their highest level of education) is watching TV.
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
Why is it when I hear the words “trickle down” I only think of PISS?
(from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-the-us-economy-really-needs-to-recover/)
"A recent uptick in employee earnings has some experts saying the economic recovery, during which income gains have gone almost entirely to affluent Americans, is beginning to trickle down. Such a rise is critical not only to lifting economic growth in the short term, but sustaining the robust consumer spending that the U.S. economy needs to thrive.
No need to rush out and buy an umbrella just yet. The Commerce Department reported that average income rose 0.3 percent in January after being flat the prior month. Government economists also said that if it hadn't been for the expiration of jobless benefits for more than 1 million unemployed people at the end of December, the jump would have been even greater. . ."
OHO's
"Ocean City Ditty," the
CD single is now available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/oho4
(and, if
you're in town, at Trax On Wax on Frederick Rd. in Catonsville, MD)
(from American Assassination; The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone by Four Arrows & Jim Fetzer)
1947: President Truman sends military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels.
1948: CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy when communists threaten to win elections.
1952:
In Iran, The CIA overthrows democratically elected Mossadegh in a
military coup after he threatened to nationalize British oil and
replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police are
brutal and kill many.
1954: In Guatemala, CIA
overthrows democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup.
Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned Fruit Company
in which CIA DIrector Allen Dulles owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with
a series of right-wing dictators whose brutal policies will kill over
100,000 Guatemalans.
1954-58: CIA attempts to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam.
1957-74:
CIA carries out almost one coup per year to nullify Laosian democratic
elections. CIA defeats result by U.S. dropping more bombs than it did
in WWII. A quarter of all Laotians become refugees.
1958:
U.S. military helps put into place Duvalier as dictator of Haiti. His
police will kill more than 100,000 and the U.S. does not protest their
dismal human rights record.
1963: CIA overthrows
democratically elected President Juan Bosch in a military coup in the
Dominican Republic, and installs a repressive, right-wing junta. The
same thing happens in Ecuador.
1964: In Brazil, a
CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected
government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will become among
the most bloodthirsty in history.
(from http://www.courant.com/entertainment/hc-winter-history-giftgiving,0,2002289.story)
By 1860, the New York Evening Post said Christmas in New York was an embarrassment of the riches that made holiday shopping more difficult and time-consuming. Most of December was spent preparing and shopping for Christmas.
The ``American,'' a journal published in 1887, asked: ``What is Christmas for? Not to enrich the shopkeepers.'' Instead, the journal argued that Christmas should be a time of worship, reunion and ``old- fashioned sports.''
Even before the 1800s, merchants were encouraging the nation's colonial culture to copy the aristocratic holiday observance of genteel gift-giving.
During the mid-1800s, entrepreneurs seized the opportunity to sell holiday trinkets and gifts in the streets, from carts and stalls. Visionaries of the modern consumer culture, from P.T. Barnum to R.H. Macy, knew how to sell Christmas to the middle-class consumer.
Children, in particular, liked this way of celebrating Christmas. It was around 1840 that children began to hang their stockings by the fireplace, according to the Connecticut Historical Society. About 20 years later, Santa became every child's hero with such 1860 stories as ``The Night Before Christmas.''
In a recent essay at www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20156-an-open-letter-to-you, William Rivers Pitt expresses an extreme helplessness at some recent events in the news which are representative of some of the major problems in modern American society.
The Democratic politician who smashes all the worldly belongings of people who live on the street because he hates homeless people; the video game based upon the Sandy Hook tragedy which was banned post-haste while nothing was done about the causes of the initial tragedy; and the young, 99 percent-er who died of a treatable ailment because of the inability to get health insurance.
Details can be pursued through the hyperlink above.
There's not much to add. And I certainly could not add anything that would be as eloquent as what Mr. Pitt has composed. I do feel the need to quote this particular portion though:
". . . I hope it is not a hollow room, a hollow country, a hollow soul I speak to, because these three stories happen all the time, and every day. This is where you live, and this is who you are. If you have a conscience, it makes you feel dirty in your heart.
We are responsible for this. We are all part of this thing that is dismantling our basic humanity brick by brick.
". . . teach your children well. . . "(Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young). . .
CHUCK!. . .
November 22, 2013 6:00 am • By CHUCK MUTH
On this coming Thanksgiving holiday, I would be eternally grateful if our government-run education camps would teach the next generation of Americans the true story of Plymouth Rock rather than the romanticized fairy tale version.
Ten years ago I read for the first time Matthew Givens’ column titled, “Thanksgiving: America’s Lesson on Why Socialism Doesn’t Work.” And I’ve been reading it to my home schooled kids every Thanksgiving ever since.
“When the colonists first landed” at Plymouth Rock in 1620, Givens wrote, “they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.”
An experiment that went horribly wrong, big time.
The Mayflower Compact required that all the colonists donate all the benefits derived from their work — farming, fishing, clothing, etc. — into the “common stock” and only take out what they actually needed. You know: From each according to ability; to each according to need.
Well, as the story was told by then-Gov. William Bradford, the young men of the colony became unhappy campers about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” And since the non-producers got the same amount of goodies from the common stock as producers, the producers simply stopped producing.
As such, “the amount of food produced was never adequate.” Thus the inadequate harvests of 1621 and 1622 did, in fact, lead to famine, malnutrition and starvation among the Pilgrims.
But it wasn’t the Indians teaching them how to farm that ultimately rescued the colonists from their plight. What did? Old-fashioned American capitalism!
“In 1623,” Givens explains, “Bradford ‘gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit.”
The result?
“By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.”
Vunderbar!
“Thanksgiving,” Givens concludes, “far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great.
It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone.”
Amen and hallelujah!
So as you sit around the Thanksgiving table this year with family and friends munching on turkey, sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie, pause to reflect on the true meaning of this quintessential American holiday just as we should pause to reflect on the true meaning of Christmas each year; that socialism is bad, even when slick-talking community organizers from Chicago try to peddle it as “fairness.”
(by codetaco on http://askville.amazon.com/NOELLE-NIKPOUR-LIVING/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=16018793)
Noelle Nikpour is the die-hard-Tea-Party conservatives' go-to gal for consultation and strategy. Not surprising.
Noelle Nikpour is a woman from Little Rock, AR who gets paid to do "Republican political consulting"; the qualifications for such a position are unknown. According to her IMDB profile, her television appearances are limited to Sean Hannity's "Hannity" show (where she has dutifully towed the party line) and "The Daily Show" (where Jon Stewart has poked fun at her the same).
During and interview with Aasiv Mandvi On the October 26, 2011 show she claimed that "scientists are scamming the American people [...] for their own financial gain." When Aasiv asked if she had any evidence or data for such a claim, she responded that "Every American [...] would have a gut feeling that some of these numbers that scientists are putting out are not right."
She complained that "Scientists are the only people qualified to comment on scientific theories"; apparently she saw no contradiction in the fact that she and others on Hannity have incessantly commented on scientific theories (such as climate change) without any qualification to do so. Some theories (such as evolution), require only the application of logic (such as examining the fossil record or observing bacteria in a petri dish). When Aasiv facetiously stated "it should be up to the American people to decide what's true", she wholeheartedly agreed by saying "absolutely!! Doesn't it make common sense?"
To me, American football is an entertainment and marketing phenomenon. The sheer number of fans
(i.e. Fanatic)
Definition of FANATIC
: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion <they're fanatic about politics>
alone boggles the mind.
(from wikipedia.com)
". . . The first instance of professional play in football was on November 12, 1892, when William "Pudge" Heffelfinger was paid $500 to play a game for the Allegheny Athletic Association in a match against the Pittsburgh Athletic Club. This is the first recorded instance of a player being paid to participate in a game of American football, although many athletic clubs in the 1880s offered to help players attain employment, gave out trophies or watches that players would pawn for money, or paid double in expense money. Football at the time had a strict sense of amateurism, and direct payment to players was frowned upon, if not outright illegal.
Professional play became common, and with it came rising salaries, unpredictable player movement, and the illegal use of amateur collegiate players in professional games. The National Football League, a group of professional teams that was originally established in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association, aimed to solve these problems. This new league's stated goals included an end to bidding wars over players, prevention of the use of college players, and abolition of the practice of paying players to leave another team. The NFL by 1922 had established itself as the premier professional football league.
The dominant form of football at the time was played at the collegiate level, but the upstart NFL received a boost to its legitimacy in 1925 when an NFL team, the Pottsville Maroons, defeated a team of Notre Dame all-stars in an exhibition game.[18] A greater emphasis on the passing game helped professional football to further distinguish itself from the college game during the late 1930s. Football in general became increasingly popular following the 1958 NFL Championship game, a match between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants that is still referred to as the "Greatest Game Ever Played". The game, a 23–17 overtime victory by the Colts, was seen by millions of television viewers and had a major impact on the popularity of the sport. This helped football to become the most popular sport in the United States by the mid-1960s. . . "
I used to try to understand it so I could watch it with others and participate in the enthusiasm and fellowship of the occasion. I have to confess, I never fully grasped the concept. In time I even stopped trying. Don't get me wrong, I truly understand and appreciate the concept of cheering for the local team (in any sport) and feel that the camaraderie that results is good for the individuals as well as the society. But I still don't understand, nor at this point in my life need or want to understand, the game of football.
Nevertheless I most certainly do intend to fully participate in the 'good vibes' inherent in the process next Sunday at the party, drinking and enjoying good friendship when we all gather to watch football, even though I still don't understand the game.
