Archive for the ‘OWS’
This is such a spot-on observation/consideration by Krugman:
What about being able to find work? Suppose you have an expensively acquired degree, and the only jobs out there are part-time gigs at minimum wage. You might not take those jobs; in that case, is it really true that you canâ€™t find work? Alternatively, you might indeed take such a job; is it really right in that case to say that you did find work?
Also interesting from the 2004 Obama, distinguishing between “Separation of Church and State” and avoiding/eschewing the “abandoning of the role of faith in politics” as some tend to do when explaining their working out of that “separation”.
in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.
Now, that’s different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values tha tinform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.
For me, there’s always an artificiality to that separation; that this is an INTELLECTUAL separation that really is simply a linguistic slight of hand that ignores the inevitability of one’s values shaping the policy. Those “values” go deeper than the stump speeches. They express themselves also in attenuating the policies to align with the economic/political pressures to keep on top and “remain viable” as a politician. We’ve heard it: “If you don’t get re-elected, then what good can you accomplish”. Words which smack of “working within the system” to the point of acquiescence, therefore solidifiying one’s perpetuation of it. I hear this from hard-core Obama supporters all the time.
don’t say, as Hayes does, that he believes achieving racial progress is just a matter of having the right conversations.
The things Conor Friersdorf claims Rand Paul believes that supposedly shoot down Chris Hayes saying the above are , again, things SAID. Paul SAYS stuff. But the behavior and advocacy are simply not there. The attempts to roll back Voting Rights, the absence of anything concrete to back Main Street, REGARDLESS of what he CLAIMS to believe, are simply not arguments against Hayes’ charge.
In effect, Friersdorf takes things said in conversation/speech, and uses them to try to defend Paul against charges (legitimate and fitting IMO) that Paul thinks you just have to change how you talk about things, when that is exactly what he’s doing when he says what he “believes” and then votes with the right wing on numerous economic matters.
Failures of the Church re: the Telecom Monopoly Issues (w/ some “inspiration” from @scrawford) http://wp.theoblogical.org/?p=19073
When I saw this Livestream speech at the 2013 NCMR (National Conference for Media Reform) via Jay Rosen’s twitter link to the transcript, I began thinking about how Church “Social Media” seems oblivious to the social issues; to the opportunities to be advocates for “the people” and what’s really best for the “Common Good” . Rather, they tend to be cheerleaders for the technology while blissfully unaware of the efforts of the monied interests in this country to bilk the larger society to benefit the wealthiest. It’s the same syndrome the churches suffered re: the Occupy movement. These “blinders” that the churches submissively adopt are , in part, out of an adoption of the status quo, which today seems to require a dissmissive attitude toward the efforts of people to call attention to the disturbing trends of the oligarchic excesses of our government and its corporate benefactors. The Obama administration seems to have made no effort to curb these excesses, in direct contradiction to the talk of “changing the way Washington works”, while all the while succumbing to those very “workings”. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the telecom industry monopolies.
Obama succumbed to the pressures against his prior desire to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head a “Consumer Advocate Agency”. NOw he has the opportunity to appoint another strong consumer advocate to head the FCC, but it seems that too will succumb (already is) to the pressures of the telecom lobby, who hold a literal stranglehold on the efforts within the technology and infrastructure of communities to battle the economic “blocking power” of the big telecom Internet providers. Just as Obama passed up momentous opportunities to impose strong medicine on the Big Banks at a time when they themselves were expecting strong medicine and acquiescing to the inevitability of it, Obama let them off practically scot-free. It seems that this tendency has been a long standing stance of the administration in regards to the blatant abuse of lobbying power to practically kill innovation in providing economy boosting, job creating infrastructure technology building projects to provide what many of the other advanced countries are providing for their citizens. But our “free market” is an Orwellian jest at this notion. It is the exact opposite. Telelcoms pressure governments with money power to squelch the abilities of communities to demand their own municipalities the ability and freedom to innovate, build, and grow. Disgusting. And what really frustrates me is that the church doesn’t use it’s “LITERAL PULPIT” or much of any effort to hlep make these atrocities known for the usurpation of rights they represent.