|
9644. bhelpuri - 10/28/2014 12:32:55 PM of course it is not just the US. China is oligarch-run and corporatist to the max, and India just held the most expensive election in world history in which big business finally wrested the reins of government into its own hands.
9645. arkymalarky - 10/28/2014 4:31:43 PM I think it's the biggest global issue. for those who say no, it's global warming or human rights or dependence on fossil fuels or virtually any world problem you can name, it goes back to corporate domination of government policies. 9647. alIstaIrcOnnOr - 10/30/2014 6:06:00 PM The European Union is pretty toxic in that respect. Possibly it will get cleaned up a bit, because it's become a public issue. Basically corporate lobbyists have been writing EU legislation for decades. Corruption is not even required, legislators can be honest and conscientious and still influenced by reasonable, persuasive professionals who help them with their work... 9648. iiibbb - 10/30/2014 7:00:35 PM Don't get caught in the trap that Corporate = evil.
I'm sure there are legitimate good ideas brought to the table by them.
We should concentrate on outing actual problems. 9649. arkymalarky - 10/30/2014 7:27:23 PM I thoroughly disagree. Corporate control of what has been the democratic process by definition kills it. Citizens United is ruining our ability to control our decision making process. It was bad before that decision, and now it's just insane. My brother in law as a state rep Had to fight against a lot of Koch money spent to defeat him. He beat it, but he was one of the very few who did. 9650. arkymalarky - 10/30/2014 7:27:28 PM I thoroughly disagree. Corporate control of what has been the democratic process by definition kills it. Citizens United is ruining our ability to control our decision making process. It was bad before that decision, and now it's just insane. My brother in law as a state rep Had to fight against a lot of Koch money spent to defeat him. He beat it, but he was one of the very few who did. 9651. Ms. No - 10/30/2014 9:57:53 PM I agree --- one person, one vote, not one dollar, one vote.
9652. judithathome - 10/30/2014 10:59:29 PM Or...millions of dollars, enough votes to sway things their way.
We no longer have a Democracy...our government is open to the highest bidder. 9653. alIstaIrcOnnOr - 10/31/2014 10:55:06 AM The Mote - International I'm sure there are legitimate good ideas brought to the table by them.
Sure. Absolutely. But come on, follow the money... Lobbyists are not paid to promote the public good; they are paid to promote private interests.
In the EU, the Commission has official consultation committees. No more than 50 of the members may be paid lobbyists. The Commission complains that there are not enough qualified civil-society candidates to make up the numbers; so generally some extra lobbyists sign up as "private citizens".
Part of this is the fact that civil-society groups are mostly organised on a national, not European, basis. But part of it is that it suits the bureaucracy very well to work with industry groups... Often opening up revolving-door opportunities when they get tired of public service and go to work for their good friends in industry.9654. iiibbb - 10/31/2014 2:43:22 PM I disagree. Not all corporations are evil.
The issue isn't them, it's tainted politicians.
But they shouldn't vote or pretend to vote. Then again, we shouldn't pretend that they won't get to the politicians somehow. 9655. judithathome - 10/31/2014 8:24:14 PM Not all corporations are evil but ALL of them have a bottom line and they seldom give money to anyone who doesn't work to enhance that line.
If it's always the politicians at fault, how do you explain corporations backing first timers? Before they know if this candidate will cooperate fully with their intentions? 9656. arkymalarky - 10/31/2014 10:26:25 PM whether they're good or evil is not pertinent to who should control politicians in a democracy. 9657. alistairconnor - 1/7/2015 8:26:26 PM I have completely lost my shit today. You can probably guess why.
Cabu, Wolinski, Tignous, Charb, these guys were cultural icons, France's best political cartoonists. I feel I have lost close friends (I have at least one friend in common with Charb, who was the specific target of the attack).
And the worst part is that they will be ignorantly portrayed as racists and Muslim-haters who were asking for it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Welcome to global jihad. All this goes back to 9/11, or more specifically to the US reaction to it... 9/11 could have been a horrible historical aberration, but instead it has become the defining event of a new era. 9658. judithathome - 1/7/2015 9:54:35 PM My sympathies go out to you, Alistair...clearly, freedom of expression is what has been attacked today.
This action was/is deplorable... 9659. judithathome - 1/7/2015 9:56:12 PM And the worst part is that they will be ignorantly portrayed as racists and Muslim-haters who were asking for it
This thought never entered my mind...I see it as an attack on the truth... 9660. robertjayb - 1/8/2015 1:05:42 AM Sorry,Alistair. Any press anywhere that attempts to make a difference is to be treasured everywhere. And I certainly agree regarding 9/11. Much shame should attach to Bush and the crew who promoted this apparently never-ending horror. Just this afternoon I repeated to spouse as I do too frequently, that that crowd should be in prison, including, sadly, Colin Powell. And here we are likely to elect BushIII. He probably is the smart Bush but he would be accompanied, inevitably, I fear, by the same sort of hangers-on who schooled George. 9661. alistairconnor - 1/8/2015 10:00:47 AM This morning they have released the identities of the suspects, two brothers. One of them has already done prison in 2008/2009 for belonging to a terrorist organisation. At his trial, he claimed he was motivated by outrage about Abou Ghraib. 9662. bhelpuri - 1/8/2015 3:15:50 PM In my opinion, it is wrong to frame this Paris massacre in the context of free speech, or indeed as a response to the specific (egregiously crass) Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Instead this is an episode in a "war", an attack that took place in the context of what many people (including state actors, including much of the US military, including Al Qaeda) seem to believe is an ongoing war between some countries in the West and Muslims. The attackers - certainly in their own minds - were "soldiers", and Charlie Hebdo no more than a convenient soft target. The main reason the cartoonists were attacked is because it was relatively easy to do so...
Of course my sympathies lie very close to Connor's, but it still remains that the Hebdo cartoonists are a tiny, fractional sideshow to the main "war" that increasing numbers of people believe they are engaged in. 9663. Ms. No - 1/9/2015 1:35:09 AM I wonder if it might not serve everyone much better to quit identifying whackadoo murderers by their beliefs.
In the end it doesn't matter that any of these terrorists is Muslim. They aren't mass murderers because they're Muslim. They're murderers because they are sociopathic nutjobs. Referring to them as "radical islamists" legitimizes them to some degree by putting them on a spectrum with other Muslims.
If we quit framing each of these attacks as part of something bigger --- some global war on "terror" or a rejection of American Imperialism --- then much of the "terror" goes away. I don't mean the horror of any single event, but the constant, grinding stress of being on alert all the damn time. That's the whole point of terrorism to begin with --- strike five or six times a year, but touch all 365 with fear of your name.
The only way to combat terror is to not be afraid. We don't leave our homes every day terrified that we're going to die in a car accident, but that is some 'leventy-thousand times more likely than dying in a terrorist attack.
9664. robertjayb - 1/9/2015 5:51:01 AM So smart it deserves a far greater audience than we few web geezers. Thanks...
|
