If there is such a demand, surely a private organization will move in to fill that demand. Why is a federal service necessary in this case?
Ah, the cherished "free market." The free market will fix all our ills. Just look at what it has done to our health care "system." Or gas prices. Or food prices.
No, the free market is only efficient at funneling profits to those at the top of the economic ladder. We need government regulation to ensure equal access. There are some markets where broadband may not be profitable operations, so there will be no broadband offered unless the government mandates it. Keeping these metrics helps us better understand which areas are under-served and thus require more regulation.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but I suspect the same sort of logic that created the Tennessee Valley Authority may be at play. It is often in the public's interest for the government to step in and either directly provide or mandate to private corporations that they provide service in areas that would ordinarily be ignored.
Sure we voted for the wrong guy, but his administration's gross mismanagement of this country showed very clearly that the two parties are not by any means identical, and that your vote for a president can have a very real impact on the policies that are put into place.
Regardless of which party is in power, the goal of dominating the Middle East is the same.
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
Conventional liberal wisdom dictates that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we'll never know for sure what might have been. We do know that Gore didn't oppose the crippling sanctions the Clinton administration enforced on Iraq, resulting in over one million innocent Iraqi deaths. To them the price was worth it. We know that Gore also supported the "Iraq Liberation Act" and accused Saddam Hussein of supporting terrorism.
Currently Barack Obama is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with his talk of withdrawal. But examining his policy proposals shows a much different picture. He wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to keep a number of troops in Iraq and has no plans to withdraw any of the so-called contractors. He wants more troops in Afghanistan and he is arguing the same discredited lies about Iran as Bush. He's not anti-war, he's anti-losing-Iraq and he's trying to find a way to salvage the US empire.
Voting Democrat is not necessarily going to lead to a hastier exit from the occupations. They promised that in 2006 when they took over Congress and they have abrogated that promise. They won't even impeach Bush. Why would they do anything different after Obama is elected? Besides, it was under the Republican Dick Nixon that the Vietnam war was ended (this time started with lies by a Democrat).
The Vietnam war was finally ended when large sections of the military refused to fight the war. Mutiny, killing of officers and widespread breakdown of command meant that the US government could no longer count on the military to fight the war. They had no choice but to end the war. The GI resistance was made possible by a large, vibrant and supportive civilian antiwar movement at home.
In Vietnam the stakes were "credibility" in the face of the US's chief imperial competitor, the USSR. Today the stakes are far higher for the US ruling class. They need to control the flow of oil in the Middle East for leverage over their emerging competitors around the globe. They are not going to just walk away from what the US State Department once called "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We're going to have to force them to leave.
Would things have turned out differently had Gore become President? I concede the point: had things been different then they would be different. But would the US still be attempting to dominate the Middle East and use every means at its disposal to do so? It would be naive to believe that Gore is somehow different in this respect.
Bottom line: if you don't like this, stop whining and playing the martyr and go vote for someone that will do what you want.
If voting could actually change anything, then it would be illegal. You think shuffling around Congress and the White House will change the entrenched corruption, pay-to-play atmosphere and pro-corporate agenda of the US government (or any government)?
Voting is little more than a democracy placebo. Every few years you are given a "choice" between corporate candidate A and corporate candidate B, both of whom support the exact same agenda--only phrased differently and with a few minor variations. Enter the compliant corporate media to highlight and magnify those differences and shut out any genuine challengers to the status quo.
Meanwhile, everyone is so busy arguing over which of the terrible candidates is less terrible, that the task of building a genuine progressive, grassroots movement for change (against the war, for worker's rights, health care, etc...) is indefinitely shelved. The only way to win progress is through struggle. As abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." So instead of actually struggling for change we're herded into the political system controlled by the same people who benefit from the status quo and resist our every demand for progress. All of our demands are dropped or watered down to suit the electoral needs of your chosen candidate--and after the election they are forgotten completely.
The major parties aren't worth wasting more than 1 minute or 1 dime on. The real task is to create a movement powerful enough to win our demands regardless of which corporate tool sits in the White House. As famous historian Howard Zinn put it, "the really critical thing isn't who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens."
Several questions for the Lt. Col. Is his unit responsible for planting bogus media stories to prop up public opinion for their occupations? Do they censor soldiers' blogs, or censor soldiers' access to information via the Internet? And on a more personal note, during his time at Bagram did the screams of tortured prisoners interfere with his concentration or productivity?
...it was due to a lot of negative moderation from people who simply disagreed with my opinion.
Well, that's what you get when you spout a bunch of nonsense, isn't it? No doubt you faithfully regurgitated the pack of lies used to sell the occupations to the American public. Such drivel is rightfully moderated down.
The best predictor of who will win the election is to see where the corporate money is going.
Traditionally the Republicans have been corporate America's favorite party—they unabashedly push right-wing policies favorable to corporations and the wealthy. However, when the Republicans overreach and become discredited (as now) then they're all too happy to switch to the "B" team, the Democrats. They know that the Democrats can be counted on to push the same pro-corporate agenda, only they're better at packaging it in a way that workers are willing to swallow it (eg: NAFTA).
The US ruling class recognizes that the Republican party has blown it and they're switching to the Democrats (for now), which is the safe bet. The money doesn't lie. Another indicator is that nearly one in seven Republican incumbents are retiring.
"The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid."
Next stop on the TSA security theater tour: force all passengers to jump up and down (in an isolated, reinforced concrete bunker) before boarding the plane. We'll get those nitroglycerin-wielding terrorists yet!
Sorry to deflate your bubble, but despite receiving lots of little donations, the majority of Obama's money (and Clinton's and McCain's and pretty much every other corporate politician) comes from large donations. Only $10 million of his contributions are between $250 and $500. That's a small fraction of the $246 million he has raised.
True, donations over a certain size are tracked, but it is also true that many of these enormous donations are bundled together by heavy hitters who do seek influence. It would be naive in the extreme to think that Obama is somehow different in this respect. Politics is a pay-to-play system, and the only way the public will have a say is to organize independently of the corporate parties and hold the government accountable—regardless of which paid-off candidate wins.
The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.
Setting aside the vast sums of money spent on campaigns and lobbyists, there's the fact that elected officials (who don't rock the boat) can look forward to lucrative jobs when they leave office—on the boards of top corporations, law and lobbying firms. Simply casting a ballot for a politician does not equal change. Change requires struggle—and as long as people are content to sit at home and do nothing (but vote on occasion and send in the occasional $100 check) the public will continue to lose out.
Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple. Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians—he just talks a better game.
I don't blame people for getting excited about Obama. After living through seven years of Bush some genuine change is long overdue. However, if you read the fine print, you'll see that Obama isn't offering much to be hopeful about—and it's going to take a mass movement of people to hold his feet to the fire and win real progress. And no, a campaign is not a movement. After the election is over he is free to ignore this "movement." The time to make demands and exact promises is now, before your vote has been cast. Simply settling for the least the two parties are willing to offer is not a recipe for progress.
An earlier poster suggested spraying, boiling or doing something to treat the "DVD" to keep it from decomposing. Assuming something like this is possible, is that a violation of DMCA? I mean, is spraying a special coating on a digital reproduction hacking? Are we going to have "intellectual property" owners lobbying Congress to plug the "hairspray hole?"
At what point do we as a people say enough? It's time for these dinosaur media conglomerates to die out already. They don't make art and music. They don't provide a useful service to society (certainly not for the outrageous profits they rake in at the expense of both consumers and artists). A long time ago when distributing film and music was a comparatively enormous and complex undertaking these businesses may have had a use. Today they merely serve to stifle creativity, exploit artists and gouge consumers. We don't need them.
"Arguably the military is one of the few things left in the US that works well."
Say what?
Trillions of dollars wasted, over a million innocent Iraqis dead, over 5 million refugees forced from their homes, thousands imprisoned and tortured without trial, a puppet regime that will fall the moment the US withdraws and more people hating the US than ever. You might even call it a "cakewalk." I wouldn't, but it sounds like we're not on the same page.
Then there's the thousands of dead US soldiers, tens of thousands injured, hundreds committing suicide each year, and nearly all of them receiving sub-standard care from a neglectful and under-funded VA system. Then there's the little-discussed fact that 1/3 of women in the US military are raped.
Imagine the ways in which we could improve the world, people's lives and reduce the widespread antipathy the US has engendered if only the military were shrunk and kept neatly within its *own* borders. As long as the US government wastes over half its budget on the military and wars there will never be enough money for education, jobs and health care. Those things will bring far more security than illegal wars for oil based on lies.
Forgive me if I don't rah-rah the latest technology that is going to "help" the military. Such technology is only going to "help" increase human misery the world over.
A campaign is NOT a mass movement. A campaign is organized from the top-down and all demands of the supporters must be subordinated to the needs/whims of the candidate. A movement is an organized expression of the needs/desires of the masses involved at the grassroots.
A simple comparison of Obama's positions shows how out of touch he is. 60-70% of Americans want an *immediate* withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, yet Obama wants no such thing. Over 60% of Americans want single-payer health care, yet Obama is devoted to protecting the health insurance industry's hold over the system. Other examples abound.
Obama is *not* in favor of ending the war in Iraq. In the debates he refused to pledge to have all troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. Read the fine print. His "withdrawal" plan would redeploy troops around the Middle East so they could be sent back in to Iraq at any time. He would leave the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and the dozen or so military bases the US has constructed there. He would leave 100,000 lawless and unaccountable mercenaries operating in Iraq. Seriously, read his manifesto for a kinder, gentler empire which he published in Foreign Affairs. It should sicken any genuine progressive or antiwar person.
The vast majority of money Obama has taken in is from corporate sources. He may have received lots of tiny donations, but they represent a small fraction of the overall money he has received. He has raked in more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in the race. In addition, he routinely lies about not taking money from lobbyists, which is a demonstrably false statement. In fact, both he and Clinton have taken in far more money from corporations than McCain has--which shows where corporate America is placing their bets.
Take off the rose-colored glasses. He's not a different kind of politician, he's only better at playing the game.
The Clinton administration was a continuation of the Reagan/Bush years. Clinton used the military to intervene more times in his eight years than all twelve under Reagan/Bush. The economic sanctions and near-weekly bombings against Iraq are responsible for over one million deaths, half of them children. Under Clinton the media was massively deregulated, paving the way for the mega-mergers that have consolidated corporate control of the media. Clinton pushed through NAFTA and ended welfare--two things that Reagan/Bush could only dream about. In 1998 he signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act," which made "regime change" the official US policy toward that nation. Throughout his administration Al Gore was an ardent supporter of the US's brutal policies and bellicose rhetoric towards Iraq. There should be no doubt that the US has a keen interest in controlling the world's oil supply, regardless of which corporate party is in power. Would the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan played out differently had Gore been in the oval office? Possibly. But there's little point in arguing an alternate reality--and Gore's history under the Clinton regime suggests he would have at the minimum continued Clinton's genocidal policies towards Iraq.
Did I write there is "no difference between them?" No, I didn't. But only the truly misinformed or naive believe that whatever minimal differences exist between the two parties are more than cosmetic. Seriously, are you arguing that we need the Democrats to restrain the worst excesses of the Republicans? Where have you been for the past seven years? In a bunker watching Fox News 24-7? The Democrats have done little but facilitate the entire Bush agenda--and now that they control Congress they continue to fund the occupations and the so-called "war on terror."
Hillary Clinton claimed that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a swell guy, but "it took a President" (LBJ) to sign the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts into law. Well, it took a *mass movement* of angry, organized citizens to *force* Congress to pass and LBJ to sign those laws. Obama isn't going to do a single progressive thing unless a mass movement gives him no other choice.
As long as we are willing to settle for the least the two parties are willing to offer we will never get anything better. Obama will be better than McCain? Better at what? Running the empire and its occupations? Maintaining corporate control of government? Overseeing the continued transfer of wealth from the working class to a tiny minority at the top? No thanks. I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it.
I beg to differ. Looking at who is funding their campaigns is a better gauge of where their priorities are.
All election year platitudes and rhetoric aside, both candidates are firmly in the pocket of corporate America and will do whatever is best for big business and not the public. Rest assured they will both embrace any technology that will help the government spy on citizens and suppress political dissent. Ditto for technology that will help the military maintain the US's global empire by killing and suppressing political dissent abroad.
Don't look for change from within the system--it doesn't work that way. Change only comes through struggle and putting pressure on the system from the outside.
And if Obama really wanted to help fund education, then a better source of funding than slashing space exploration would be to slash military spending. However, he's not about to tip that sacred cow--because like McCain he fully supports the US's drive to dominate the planet. The Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement on that point (they only disagree on how to best implement it).
Spoken like a true capitalist. Society would shut down and the human race would die out if rich people weren't around to exploit us all!
Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, *capitalism* is the complete failure. 6 million people dying of hunger and preventable disease *every* year, three billion people living on less than $2/day, environmental catastrophe, unchecked global warming, racism, endless wars... yeah. Big success. Thank you capitalists! What would we do without you all?
A lot of what I'm reading on this thread amounts to, "so what? Such-and-such person doesn't get paid this much, or he didn't work as many hours as this person." These arguments are not helpful and they fail to get at the heart of the matter.
We're talking about a "blockbuster" game with $600 million in sales. None of the workers involved in the production are getting their fair share, whether voice actors, animators, engineers, QA, project managers, or even the support staff who maintain the business working environment (such as janitors, office assistants and others). Hundreds of people collaborated on this game and they're all getting paid a fraction of what their labor is worth. The "owners" of the game, who never performed one minute of actual productive labor, are going to reap the lion's share of the profits.
Actors (and writers) in other industries (voice or no) receive royalties because their likeness is being reproduced and re-used for commercial purposes (read: for profit). As such, they deserve a cut of the profits. So do the other workers who contributed to the game.
The entertainment industry as a whole (film, tv, news, games) is immensely profitable, but the owners are loathe to cut anyone in on the action. They need to pay those who create their profits a bigger share, and the only way that is going to happen is if workers organize and withdraw their labor power. Our only leverage as workers is the fact that the bosses need us to create their profits. Without workers the bosses have nothing.
Suuuuure... a coding bug is to blame! Nevermind that the agencies selling this financial toxic waste *paid* Moody's, S&P and others to provide good ratings. Software bug or no, there is fraud all around within the US economy--and no one was complaining as long as people at the top were raking in billions of dollars in profits.
As long as people docilely submit to the US government's gestapo tactics, then these tactics will continue. The government's intrusions into our privacy are more about creating a climate of fear than actually protecting the citizens of the US. Merely browse through all of the creative solutions on this thread to understand exactly how futile searching laptops is.
Until people stop cooperating the unwarranted harassment of citizens and visitors will continue. Corporations should refuse to do business within the US and people harassed by customs should be as uncooperative as possible (without doing anything that risks an all-expenses paid trip to Guantanamo).
Yet there is an epidemic of abuse of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA. This is yet another corporate giveaway. It's about protecting the profits of corporations, not defending the public interest. As usual. Welcome to capitalist "democracy."
So-called "due process" is a joke in a nation with 1% of its population behind bars and proven racial disparities in sentencing.
I don't believe either corporate party (Republican or Democrat) has any interest in free and fair elections in the US. Why do I think that? Because I have yet to see a concerted effort to substantively improve the accuracy and accountability of our voting systems (and in an equitable manner, not piecemeal with some districts "more equal" than others in reliability).
Democracy in the United States is an illusion. Corporations and the wealthy control the government and they always have. They have many means at their disposal for accomplishing this feat:
1. legal bribery (aka: campaign finance) 2. veiled bribery (aka: lobbying) 3. rewarding officials (elected or appointed) with lucrative jobs when they leave office 4. when all else fails, the capitalists can sabotage the economy (by moving their capital overseas) and essentially blackmail the government to do their bidding
The amount of money raised (the vast majority of it coming from the wealthy and corporations), media coverage (controlled by corporations) and incumbency are the biggest predictors of which candidate will win. Voting is little more than a formality. In fact, voting is the riskiest part of the game for politicians, because there is a small but very real chance the public will not choose the favored candidate. Why would those who benefit from the status quo actually want to make elections fairer and increase the risk of popular will preventing the outcome desired by the capitalist class?
The role of "democracy" in the US is not to express the public will, but to give the illusion that the government has popular support. Two corporate parties have jointly ruled the US for over 150 years, much to the benefit of the wealthy. Any progress we've won was the result of pressure from below by mass movements--not because good politicians were elected or the right party was in power.
This illusion of democracy helps forestall the development of a genuine progressive movement. After all, why bother with the long, hard work of building a movement if there are free elections or if the public supports the regime in power? And besides, party X might not be as good as I would wish, but they're better than party Y and they at least give lip service to my ideals.
Free market ideologues like to raise the boogedy-boo spectre of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (mwah hah hah hah!!!). It's a ruse.
First off, single-payer does not necessarily mean socialized medicine. All single-payer means is that there is one risk pool, one bureaucracy for shuffling papers, and one entity making payments to the actual care providers. It does not mean that the government is in the business of providing medical services--which is what most people mean by "socialized medicine." Some countries have chosen this route, others haven't. The simplest answer to providing single-payer in the US would be to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Private and public doctors, clinics and hospitals would still exist and would perform business as usual. Only instead of having to deal with hundreds of insurers, each with their own claim forms, they've got just one: the government.
Secondly, look at the actual numbers and statistics. The US ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of quality of care, life expectancy and amount of care received per dollar paid into the system. Every other industrialized nation with single-payer has better care than the US.
Third, while there may be some cases of people having to wait longer for certain types of treatment (in other nations with single-payer), there are currently 47 million people in the US that aren't even covered. They will be waiting years, perhaps forever, for care that they need right now. Scare stories from detractors of single-payer (usually people who stand to benefit from continuing the current system) about a tiny minority of people who have to wait longer for treatment are not a sound argument for letting nearly 50 million go without.
Finally, if it is the case that people under a single-payer system are waiting for treatment that they genuinely need, then it means the government is inadequately funding the system--and the people need to fight for more funding. The money to provide adequate treatment for everyone is already available. The amount of money currently spent on care in the US is enough to fund a single-payer system. Only because of greed and the inefficiency of our private insurance system 47 million are left out in the cold and 18,000 die premature deaths every year.
Take a poll in any industrialized country and ask the citizens if they would prefer a "free market" private system like we have in the US or their single-payer systems. No doubt you'll find some whiners who pine for the days of profiting from others' illness, but by and large most people appreciate the quality of care, affordability and simplicity of getting treatment under single-payer.
Insurance companies profit when you stay healthy and don't cash in.
If that were true then insurance companies wouldn't deliberately deny valid claims. As it stands they have a financial incentive to deny as many claims as possible—the less money they pay out means the more their greedy executives and shareholders make. This is also why they refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions.
They're parasites, nothing more.
The ones who "game the system" are the insurance companies. They refuse to cover people when they deem it unprofitable and they intentionally deny claims that they know should cover. They increase their profits by denying care. The entire business model of private health insurance is immoral, as they profit from the illness and misfortune of others. Then they buy politicians (like Clinton, Obama and McCain) to ensure their gravy train keeps rolling. The only solution is single-payer. We're all in the same risk pool, we're all covered, and physicians make medical decisions--not bureaucrats and legislators.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the cherished "free market." The free market will fix all our ills. Just look at what it has done to our health care "system." Or gas prices. Or food prices.
No, the free market is only efficient at funneling profits to those at the top of the economic ladder. We need government regulation to ensure equal access. There are some markets where broadband may not be profitable operations, so there will be no broadband offered unless the government mandates it. Keeping these metrics helps us better understand which areas are under-served and thus require more regulation.
I don't know the specifics of this case, but I suspect the same sort of logic that created the Tennessee Valley Authority may be at play. It is often in the public's interest for the government to step in and either directly provide or mandate to private corporations that they provide service in areas that would ordinarily be ignored.
Regardless of which party is in power, the goal of dominating the Middle East is the same.
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."
That might sound like Bush but those words were uttered by alleged humanitarian Jimmy Carter. The history of both corporate parties shows they have enthusiastically pursued the nation's imperial ambitions abroad.
Conventional liberal wisdom dictates that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but we'll never know for sure what might have been. We do know that Gore didn't oppose the crippling sanctions the Clinton administration enforced on Iraq, resulting in over one million innocent Iraqi deaths. To them the price was worth it. We know that Gore also supported the "Iraq Liberation Act" and accused Saddam Hussein of supporting terrorism.
Currently Barack Obama is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with his talk of withdrawal. But examining his policy proposals shows a much different picture. He wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to keep a number of troops in Iraq and has no plans to withdraw any of the so-called contractors. He wants more troops in Afghanistan and he is arguing the same discredited lies about Iran as Bush. He's not anti-war, he's anti-losing-Iraq and he's trying to find a way to salvage the US empire.
Voting Democrat is not necessarily going to lead to a hastier exit from the occupations. They promised that in 2006 when they took over Congress and they have abrogated that promise. They won't even impeach Bush. Why would they do anything different after Obama is elected? Besides, it was under the Republican Dick Nixon that the Vietnam war was ended (this time started with lies by a Democrat).
The Vietnam war was finally ended when large sections of the military refused to fight the war. Mutiny, killing of officers and widespread breakdown of command meant that the US government could no longer count on the military to fight the war. They had no choice but to end the war. The GI resistance was made possible by a large, vibrant and supportive civilian antiwar movement at home.
In Vietnam the stakes were "credibility" in the face of the US's chief imperial competitor, the USSR. Today the stakes are far higher for the US ruling class. They need to control the flow of oil in the Middle East for leverage over their emerging competitors around the globe. They are not going to just walk away from what the US State Department once called "one of the greatest material prizes in world history." We're going to have to force them to leave.
Would things have turned out differently had Gore become President? I concede the point: had things been different then they would be different. But would the US still be attempting to dominate the Middle East and use every means at its disposal to do so? It would be naive to believe that Gore is somehow different in this respect.
If voting could actually change anything, then it would be illegal. You think shuffling around Congress and the White House will change the entrenched corruption, pay-to-play atmosphere and pro-corporate agenda of the US government (or any government)?
Voting is little more than a democracy placebo. Every few years you are given a "choice" between corporate candidate A and corporate candidate B, both of whom support the exact same agenda--only phrased differently and with a few minor variations. Enter the compliant corporate media to highlight and magnify those differences and shut out any genuine challengers to the status quo.
Meanwhile, everyone is so busy arguing over which of the terrible candidates is less terrible, that the task of building a genuine progressive, grassroots movement for change (against the war, for worker's rights, health care, etc...) is indefinitely shelved. The only way to win progress is through struggle. As abolitionist Frederick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." So instead of actually struggling for change we're herded into the political system controlled by the same people who benefit from the status quo and resist our every demand for progress. All of our demands are dropped or watered down to suit the electoral needs of your chosen candidate--and after the election they are forgotten completely.
The major parties aren't worth wasting more than 1 minute or 1 dime on. The real task is to create a movement powerful enough to win our demands regardless of which corporate tool sits in the White House. As famous historian Howard Zinn put it, "the really critical thing isn't who is sitting in the White House, but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens."
Several questions for the Lt. Col. Is his unit responsible for planting bogus media stories to prop up public opinion for their occupations? Do they censor soldiers' blogs, or censor soldiers' access to information via the Internet? And on a more personal note, during his time at Bagram did the screams of tortured prisoners interfere with his concentration or productivity?
Well, that's what you get when you spout a bunch of nonsense, isn't it? No doubt you faithfully regurgitated the pack of lies used to sell the occupations to the American public. Such drivel is rightfully moderated down.
The best predictor of who will win the election is to see where the corporate money is going.
Traditionally the Republicans have been corporate America's favorite party—they unabashedly push right-wing policies favorable to corporations and the wealthy. However, when the Republicans overreach and become discredited (as now) then they're all too happy to switch to the "B" team, the Democrats. They know that the Democrats can be counted on to push the same pro-corporate agenda, only they're better at packaging it in a way that workers are willing to swallow it (eg: NAFTA).
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised nearly half a billion dollars combined, while poor li'l McCain hasn't even raised $100 million. Oh sure, Obama has received lots of little contributions, but he's swimming in money from Wall Street, lobbyists and other fat cats.
The US ruling class recognizes that the Republican party has blown it and they're switching to the Democrats (for now), which is the safe bet. The money doesn't lie. Another indicator is that nearly one in seven Republican incumbents are retiring.
Next stop on the TSA security theater tour: force all passengers to jump up and down (in an isolated, reinforced concrete bunker) before boarding the plane. We'll get those nitroglycerin-wielding terrorists yet!
Sorry to deflate your bubble, but despite receiving lots of little donations, the majority of Obama's money (and Clinton's and McCain's and pretty much every other corporate politician) comes from large donations. Only $10 million of his contributions are between $250 and $500. That's a small fraction of the $246 million he has raised.
True, donations over a certain size are tracked, but it is also true that many of these enormous donations are bundled together by heavy hitters who do seek influence. It would be naive in the extreme to think that Obama is somehow different in this respect. Politics is a pay-to-play system, and the only way the public will have a say is to organize independently of the corporate parties and hold the government accountable—regardless of which paid-off candidate wins.
The larger point is that all three major candidates have taken in over half a billion dollars, and while Obama may tout his plethora of tiny donations, it still only amounts to a fraction of the total he has received. Campaign finance is nothing more than open, legal bribery. There is a reason why corporations and the wealthy have far more influence in the government than workers, and why corporate interests trump public interests.
Setting aside the vast sums of money spent on campaigns and lobbyists, there's the fact that elected officials (who don't rock the boat) can look forward to lucrative jobs when they leave office—on the boards of top corporations, law and lobbying firms. Simply casting a ballot for a politician does not equal change. Change requires struggle—and as long as people are content to sit at home and do nothing (but vote on occasion and send in the occasional $100 check) the public will continue to lose out.
Obama is a case in point. One of his top contributors is Exelon, one of the US's largest nuclear power corporations. In exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, Obama successfully watered down legislation that would hold nuclear power plant operators accountable to local governments in the case of leaks or other accidents. Quid pro quo, pure and simple. Look at the $4 million he's raked in from the health care industry and you begin to understand why he opposes single-payer healthcare, an issue supported by over 60% of Americans. Obama's no different from other politicians—he just talks a better game.
I don't blame people for getting excited about Obama. After living through seven years of Bush some genuine change is long overdue. However, if you read the fine print, you'll see that Obama isn't offering much to be hopeful about—and it's going to take a mass movement of people to hold his feet to the fire and win real progress. And no, a campaign is not a movement. After the election is over he is free to ignore this "movement." The time to make demands and exact promises is now, before your vote has been cast. Simply settling for the least the two parties are willing to offer is not a recipe for progress.
Not quite. You forgot to add the vast sums of money to the equation.
Obama: $4,022,006 (TV/Movies/Music) + $3,060,630 (Computers/Internet) = $7,082,636
McCain: $636,046 (TV/Movies/Music) + $629,315 (Computers/Internet) = $1,265,361
Gee, I wonder who's going to be listening harder to what the RIAA, telcos and other technology sector players have to say...
An earlier poster suggested spraying, boiling or doing something to treat the "DVD" to keep it from decomposing. Assuming something like this is possible, is that a violation of DMCA? I mean, is spraying a special coating on a digital reproduction hacking? Are we going to have "intellectual property" owners lobbying Congress to plug the "hairspray hole?"
At what point do we as a people say enough? It's time for these dinosaur media conglomerates to die out already. They don't make art and music. They don't provide a useful service to society (certainly not for the outrageous profits they rake in at the expense of both consumers and artists). A long time ago when distributing film and music was a comparatively enormous and complex undertaking these businesses may have had a use. Today they merely serve to stifle creativity, exploit artists and gouge consumers. We don't need them.
"Arguably the military is one of the few things left in the US that works well."
Say what?
Trillions of dollars wasted, over a million innocent Iraqis dead, over 5 million refugees forced from their homes, thousands imprisoned and tortured without trial, a puppet regime that will fall the moment the US withdraws and more people hating the US than ever. You might even call it a "cakewalk." I wouldn't, but it sounds like we're not on the same page.
Then there's the thousands of dead US soldiers, tens of thousands injured, hundreds committing suicide each year, and nearly all of them receiving sub-standard care from a neglectful and under-funded VA system. Then there's the little-discussed fact that 1/3 of women in the US military are raped.
Imagine the ways in which we could improve the world, people's lives and reduce the widespread antipathy the US has engendered if only the military were shrunk and kept neatly within its *own* borders. As long as the US government wastes over half its budget on the military and wars there will never be enough money for education, jobs and health care. Those things will bring far more security than illegal wars for oil based on lies.
Forgive me if I don't rah-rah the latest technology that is going to "help" the military. Such technology is only going to "help" increase human misery the world over.
A campaign is NOT a mass movement. A campaign is organized from the top-down and all demands of the supporters must be subordinated to the needs/whims of the candidate. A movement is an organized expression of the needs/desires of the masses involved at the grassroots.
A simple comparison of Obama's positions shows how out of touch he is. 60-70% of Americans want an *immediate* withdrawal of all troops from Iraq, yet Obama wants no such thing. Over 60% of Americans want single-payer health care, yet Obama is devoted to protecting the health insurance industry's hold over the system. Other examples abound.
A campaign is not a movement.
Obama is *not* in favor of ending the war in Iraq. In the debates he refused to pledge to have all troops withdrawn from Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. Read the fine print. His "withdrawal" plan would redeploy troops around the Middle East so they could be sent back in to Iraq at any time. He would leave the world's largest embassy in Baghdad and the dozen or so military bases the US has constructed there. He would leave 100,000 lawless and unaccountable mercenaries operating in Iraq. Seriously, read his manifesto for a kinder, gentler empire which he published in Foreign Affairs. It should sicken any genuine progressive or antiwar person.
The vast majority of money Obama has taken in is from corporate sources. He may have received lots of tiny donations, but they represent a small fraction of the overall money he has received. He has raked in more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in the race. In addition, he routinely lies about not taking money from lobbyists, which is a demonstrably false statement. In fact, both he and Clinton have taken in far more money from corporations than McCain has--which shows where corporate America is placing their bets.
Take off the rose-colored glasses. He's not a different kind of politician, he's only better at playing the game.
The Clinton administration was a continuation of the Reagan/Bush years. Clinton used the military to intervene more times in his eight years than all twelve under Reagan/Bush. The economic sanctions and near-weekly bombings against Iraq are responsible for over one million deaths, half of them children. Under Clinton the media was massively deregulated, paving the way for the mega-mergers that have consolidated corporate control of the media. Clinton pushed through NAFTA and ended welfare--two things that Reagan/Bush could only dream about. In 1998 he signed into law the "Iraq Liberation Act," which made "regime change" the official US policy toward that nation. Throughout his administration Al Gore was an ardent supporter of the US's brutal policies and bellicose rhetoric towards Iraq. There should be no doubt that the US has a keen interest in controlling the world's oil supply, regardless of which corporate party is in power. Would the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan played out differently had Gore been in the oval office? Possibly. But there's little point in arguing an alternate reality--and Gore's history under the Clinton regime suggests he would have at the minimum continued Clinton's genocidal policies towards Iraq.
Did I write there is "no difference between them?" No, I didn't. But only the truly misinformed or naive believe that whatever minimal differences exist between the two parties are more than cosmetic. Seriously, are you arguing that we need the Democrats to restrain the worst excesses of the Republicans? Where have you been for the past seven years? In a bunker watching Fox News 24-7? The Democrats have done little but facilitate the entire Bush agenda--and now that they control Congress they continue to fund the occupations and the so-called "war on terror."
Hillary Clinton claimed that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a swell guy, but "it took a President" (LBJ) to sign the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts into law. Well, it took a *mass movement* of angry, organized citizens to *force* Congress to pass and LBJ to sign those laws. Obama isn't going to do a single progressive thing unless a mass movement gives him no other choice.
As long as we are willing to settle for the least the two parties are willing to offer we will never get anything better. Obama will be better than McCain? Better at what? Running the empire and its occupations? Maintaining corporate control of government? Overseeing the continued transfer of wealth from the working class to a tiny minority at the top? No thanks. I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for something I don't want and get it.
I beg to differ. Looking at who is funding their campaigns is a better gauge of where their priorities are.
All election year platitudes and rhetoric aside, both candidates are firmly in the pocket of corporate America and will do whatever is best for big business and not the public. Rest assured they will both embrace any technology that will help the government spy on citizens and suppress political dissent. Ditto for technology that will help the military maintain the US's global empire by killing and suppressing political dissent abroad.
Don't look for change from within the system--it doesn't work that way. Change only comes through struggle and putting pressure on the system from the outside.
And if Obama really wanted to help fund education, then a better source of funding than slashing space exploration would be to slash military spending. However, he's not about to tip that sacred cow--because like McCain he fully supports the US's drive to dominate the planet. The Democrats and Republicans are in complete agreement on that point (they only disagree on how to best implement it).
Spoken like a true capitalist. Society would shut down and the human race would die out if rich people weren't around to exploit us all! Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed, *capitalism* is the complete failure. 6 million people dying of hunger and preventable disease *every* year, three billion people living on less than $2/day, environmental catastrophe, unchecked global warming, racism, endless wars... yeah. Big success. Thank you capitalists! What would we do without you all?
A lot of what I'm reading on this thread amounts to, "so what? Such-and-such person doesn't get paid this much, or he didn't work as many hours as this person." These arguments are not helpful and they fail to get at the heart of the matter.
We're talking about a "blockbuster" game with $600 million in sales. None of the workers involved in the production are getting their fair share, whether voice actors, animators, engineers, QA, project managers, or even the support staff who maintain the business working environment (such as janitors, office assistants and others). Hundreds of people collaborated on this game and they're all getting paid a fraction of what their labor is worth. The "owners" of the game, who never performed one minute of actual productive labor, are going to reap the lion's share of the profits.
Actors (and writers) in other industries (voice or no) receive royalties because their likeness is being reproduced and re-used for commercial purposes (read: for profit). As such, they deserve a cut of the profits. So do the other workers who contributed to the game.
The entertainment industry as a whole (film, tv, news, games) is immensely profitable, but the owners are loathe to cut anyone in on the action. They need to pay those who create their profits a bigger share, and the only way that is going to happen is if workers organize and withdraw their labor power. Our only leverage as workers is the fact that the bosses need us to create their profits. Without workers the bosses have nothing.
Suuuuure... a coding bug is to blame! Nevermind that the agencies selling this financial toxic waste *paid* Moody's, S&P and others to provide good ratings. Software bug or no, there is fraud all around within the US economy--and no one was complaining as long as people at the top were raking in billions of dollars in profits.
As long as people docilely submit to the US government's gestapo tactics, then these tactics will continue. The government's intrusions into our privacy are more about creating a climate of fear than actually protecting the citizens of the US. Merely browse through all of the creative solutions on this thread to understand exactly how futile searching laptops is.
Until people stop cooperating the unwarranted harassment of citizens and visitors will continue. Corporations should refuse to do business within the US and people harassed by customs should be as uncooperative as possible (without doing anything that risks an all-expenses paid trip to Guantanamo).
Yet there is an epidemic of abuse of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA. This is yet another corporate giveaway. It's about protecting the profits of corporations, not defending the public interest. As usual. Welcome to capitalist "democracy."
So-called "due process" is a joke in a nation with 1% of its population behind bars and proven racial disparities in sentencing.
I don't believe either corporate party (Republican or Democrat) has any interest in free and fair elections in the US. Why do I think that? Because I have yet to see a concerted effort to substantively improve the accuracy and accountability of our voting systems (and in an equitable manner, not piecemeal with some districts "more equal" than others in reliability).
Democracy in the United States is an illusion. Corporations and the wealthy control the government and they always have. They have many means at their disposal for accomplishing this feat:
1. legal bribery (aka: campaign finance)
2. veiled bribery (aka: lobbying)
3. rewarding officials (elected or appointed) with lucrative jobs when they leave office
4. when all else fails, the capitalists can sabotage the economy (by moving their capital overseas) and essentially blackmail the government to do their bidding
The amount of money raised (the vast majority of it coming from the wealthy and corporations), media coverage (controlled by corporations) and incumbency are the biggest predictors of which candidate will win. Voting is little more than a formality. In fact, voting is the riskiest part of the game for politicians, because there is a small but very real chance the public will not choose the favored candidate. Why would those who benefit from the status quo actually want to make elections fairer and increase the risk of popular will preventing the outcome desired by the capitalist class?
The role of "democracy" in the US is not to express the public will, but to give the illusion that the government has popular support. Two corporate parties have jointly ruled the US for over 150 years, much to the benefit of the wealthy. Any progress we've won was the result of pressure from below by mass movements--not because good politicians were elected or the right party was in power.
This illusion of democracy helps forestall the development of a genuine progressive movement. After all, why bother with the long, hard work of building a movement if there are free elections or if the public supports the regime in power? And besides, party X might not be as good as I would wish, but they're better than party Y and they at least give lip service to my ideals.
Free market ideologues like to raise the boogedy-boo spectre of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (mwah hah hah hah!!!). It's a ruse.
First off, single-payer does not necessarily mean socialized medicine. All single-payer means is that there is one risk pool, one bureaucracy for shuffling papers, and one entity making payments to the actual care providers. It does not mean that the government is in the business of providing medical services--which is what most people mean by "socialized medicine." Some countries have chosen this route, others haven't. The simplest answer to providing single-payer in the US would be to expand Medicare to cover everyone. Private and public doctors, clinics and hospitals would still exist and would perform business as usual. Only instead of having to deal with hundreds of insurers, each with their own claim forms, they've got just one: the government.
Secondly, look at the actual numbers and statistics. The US ranks at the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of quality of care, life expectancy and amount of care received per dollar paid into the system. Every other industrialized nation with single-payer has better care than the US.
Third, while there may be some cases of people having to wait longer for certain types of treatment (in other nations with single-payer), there are currently 47 million people in the US that aren't even covered. They will be waiting years, perhaps forever, for care that they need right now. Scare stories from detractors of single-payer (usually people who stand to benefit from continuing the current system) about a tiny minority of people who have to wait longer for treatment are not a sound argument for letting nearly 50 million go without.
Finally, if it is the case that people under a single-payer system are waiting for treatment that they genuinely need, then it means the government is inadequately funding the system--and the people need to fight for more funding. The money to provide adequate treatment for everyone is already available. The amount of money currently spent on care in the US is enough to fund a single-payer system. Only because of greed and the inefficiency of our private insurance system 47 million are left out in the cold and 18,000 die premature deaths every year.
Take a poll in any industrialized country and ask the citizens if they would prefer a "free market" private system like we have in the US or their single-payer systems. No doubt you'll find some whiners who pine for the days of profiting from others' illness, but by and large most people appreciate the quality of care, affordability and simplicity of getting treatment under single-payer.
The ones who "game the system" are the insurance companies. They refuse to cover people when they deem it unprofitable and they intentionally deny claims that they know should cover. They increase their profits by denying care. The entire business model of private health insurance is immoral, as they profit from the illness and misfortune of others. Then they buy politicians (like Clinton, Obama and McCain) to ensure their gravy train keeps rolling. The only solution is single-payer. We're all in the same risk pool, we're all covered, and physicians make medical decisions--not bureaucrats and legislators.