Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 33,336
Number of posts: 33,336
- 2014 (41)
- 2013 (111)
- 2012 (186)
- Older Archives
This was probably in the works before that oligarchy study came out, but it's difficult to think of a more in your face confirmation.
The base of the Democratic Party is ignored, but the college age CHILDREN of billionaires are begged for their input before they bother to buy access and make demands like their parents.
My favorite line is highlighted below, a definition of "impact investing" that generates a social benefit AND returns a "meaningful" profit.
I wonder if they were talking about the success of privatized prisons and the effort to privatize public education, the latter being pushed by "philanthropists" hoping to set up a cash cow of taxpayer dollars akin to the Department of Defense (with equally lax oversight).
If you needed more confirmation that we live in a country of, by, and for the rich, this is it.
Can't we just have ONE party for the very wealthy and one for the rest of us?
On a crisp morning in late March, an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes filed into a cozy auditorium at the White House.
Their name tags read like a catalog of the country’s wealthiest and most influential clans: Rockefeller, Pritzker, Marriott. They were there for a discreet, invitation-only summit hosted by the Obama administration to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next-generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.
One topic that seemed to generate intense interest among the wealthy heirs was impact investing, which refers to a socially conscious form of investing that seeks to generate both a social benefit and a meaningful financial return.
Posted by yurbud | Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:01 AM (17 replies)
Mike Ruppert killed himself today. He was one of the bravest and best informed critics of government wrongdoings at the highest levels.
Here he is doing what we wish most reporters would do.
Posted by yurbud | Wed Apr 16, 2014, 01:48 AM (13 replies)
Maybe I hadn't looked before, but I noticed on my W-2 line DD that said "Health Insurance Coverage," $6,393.28.
And that's just for me.
My wife's insurance covers the three of us for $22,604.25.
Since most people get their insurance through their jobs if they have it, I suspect they have no idea how much it costs.
Those who are self-employed or for other reasons have to buy their own insurance would know how expensive it is.
Before I had a job that covered me, I would compare the cost of buying insurance to my most expensive out of pocket spending, and insurance was always more. At best, it spread out the costs evenly.
If people had looked at this before Obamacare passed, I suspect it would have changed the debate dramatically, with at minimum, more people behind reining in the insurance companies, and possibly even more people wanting to drown them in the bathtub.
Besides asking people if they looked at this number, you could also ask them to guess what it is first. I doubt that most would be high enough and when they see the real number, they'll realize how well the free market has been taking care of them.
Posted by yurbud | Thu Apr 10, 2014, 01:05 PM (8 replies)
Posted by yurbud | Mon Apr 7, 2014, 10:51 AM (3 replies)
If Democrats want to widen their margins in elections, they might consider siding with students, teachers, and parents instead of Wall Street when it comes to K-12 education policy.
Posted by yurbud | Tue Apr 1, 2014, 04:06 PM (12 replies)
My wife is a public school teacher and I teach at public community colleges, and we are facing a similar dilemma: we know that the corporate reform agenda has creating new and worse problems rather than solving any that actually existed before they took over, so we are trying to figure out what kind of private school we can afford for our child and how we can afford to have more than one if public schools continue to put the avarice of the wealthy ahead of the education of our children.
It's ironic: the people who can afford to send their kids to private schools are fucking up public schools so badly that parents who can't afford private school have to figure out how to pay for it anyway.
Why don't Gates, the Waltons, Eli Broad and the like set up a chain of private schools to try out their pet ideas, or better yet, "reform" the elite prep schools they send their children to and see how many of their wealthy friends keep sending their kids there? And leave our public schools alone.
That they don't tells you they don't know or particularly care if their reforms work--they just see a half trillion dollar pool of money spent on public education each year and want to divert as much of it as possible into their own pockets.
Some people here don't like litmus tests for candidates, but any democrat who treats public education like a luau pig for the wealthy should not get our money or campaigning efforts, and should be primaried by anyone who will try to stop this.
Tim Farley has had it. He knows what the state and federal government is mandating is wrong. He knows it hurts children. He will do his best to protect the children from these harmful and spirit-deadening demands. But he will home-school his youngest child. He explains why here:
Tim Farley writes:
My wife and I have finally hit the breaking point. We can no longer sit by and watch the educational system that has been co opted by Bill Gates and his corporate cronies in the name of "education reform", harm our youngest child. Jessica and I are the parents of four wonderful children (7th, 5th, 3rd grade, and kindergarten). Although we would like to homeschool all of our children, due to several factors, we will only be homeschooling our youngest, John Paul.
Posted by yurbud | Mon Mar 31, 2014, 01:25 PM (9 replies)
You would think that there would be some crimes so heinous the wealthy couldn't buy their way out of prison time, but this proves that wrong.
Since this judge doesn't think this guy belongs in prison, maybe she should take his place. Seriously, she should be investigated and removed from the bench.
A Superior Court judge who sentenced an heir to the du Pont fortune to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter wrote in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and suggested that he needed treatment instead of time behind bars, according to Delaware Online.
Court records show that in Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards confused several criminal justice authorities in Delaware, who said that her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.
Defender Brendan J. O’Neill, whose office represents defendants who normally cannot afford a lawyer. “Prison is to punish, to segregate the offender from society, and the notion that prison serves people well hasn’t proven to be true in most circumstances.”
O’Neill explained that he has previously argued that case if a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he had never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”
Posted by yurbud | Mon Mar 31, 2014, 12:37 AM (4 replies)
Did you ever notice that legislature never seem to talk about a budget crisis when it comes to the pet projects of the wealthy like turning public schools over to for-profit charter companies?
Too many Democrats support this profoundly corrupt, corporate-driven K-12 education "reform" business, and they should be primaried out of office.
At the very least, support for these policies should kill the chance of pols like Cuomo reaching higher office. When you sleep with dogs, you've got too fucking many fleas to be in the White House.
The following just in as the New York State Legislature responds to the pressure of a $5 million advertising campaign demanding free space for privately-managed charters. Also, the billionaires behind this ad campaign have given handsome sums to Governor Cuomo and other key politicians. Cuomo has received at least $800,000 from the charter advocates. Under the legislation below, the charters are given the right to expand as much as they want, without paying rent, pushing out the public school that once was sited in the building. The charters can afford to pay their "CEO" half a million dollars, but they can't pay the rent. They can pay millions for attack ads on television, but they can't pay the rent. They can hire the politically-hot public relations firm SDK Knickerbocker more than $500,000 a year, but they can't pay the rent. Their biggest boosters are billionaires, like Paul Tudor Jones, whose Robin Hood Foundation raises $80 million in a single night, but the charters can't pay the rent. The charters are proving to be public parasites in New York City, invading the host and doing harm to the 94% of children who are not in charters.
One more point: When the Common Core tests were given a year ago, students in charter schools got the same average scores as students in public schools, even though the charters have few if any students with severe disabilities (and the public schools in poor neighborhoods have nearly 15%), and the charters typically have half as many English language learners. There were a few high-flying charter schools, but even more high-flying public schools. On average, there was no difference between the public schools and the charter schools.
Looks like the City is forced to offer either space or rent to new or expanding charter schools.
Posted by yurbud | Sat Mar 29, 2014, 01:46 PM (13 replies)
Their worst secret is their government's involvement in 9/11, which was outlined in the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 that the Bush administration classified.
Here's some of what might be in there:
On the other hand, this article is a good reminder of how the Saudis prime their people fight abroad as the did in Afghanistan in the 80's with bin Laden and in Iraq in the last decade.
There was some good reporting on this right after 9/11 even by the networks, but once they got their talking points on Iraq, it was forgotten.
Maybe this article represents a shift in Washington to open that door a crack since we don't need Saudi oil quite that much.
As President Obama prepares for his first visit of his second term to Saudi Arabia, pressure is mounting on the State Department to publish the most comprehensive U.S. government study of the Kingdom’s textbooks.
While the study has been finished since the end of 2012, it has nonetheless been kept from the public, according to a new report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a center-right think tank in Washington.
The report, shared with The Daily Beast ahead of publication Tuesday, says, “The State Department is in possession of a uniquely exhaustive set of recent findings about incitement in Saudi Arabia's education system, findings that it has declined to release for public consumption.”
Often these textbooks promote the kind of religious chauvinism embraced by Sunni terror groups like al Qaeda. A June 12, 2006 cable from the U.S. embassy in Riyadh disclosed by WikiLeaks highlights this kind of bigotry. It says an eighth grade textbook for example says, “God will punish any Muslim who does not literally obey God just as God punished some Jews by turning them into pigs and monkeys.”
Posted by yurbud | Tue Mar 25, 2014, 11:54 AM (7 replies)
A crucial read and worth spreading around.
Do we really want food subject to monopolies and cartels that can manipulate prices to create artificial scarcity or kill competition by dumping their product so cheaply local farmers can't make a profit?
We don't need a Agriculture Commissar dictating five year plans for grain--but we do need some genuine trustbusters and watchdogs that keep them from rising up again.
This also argues for laws against economic terrorism, which does far more damage than any guys with a political or religious agenda could ever dream of doing.
A new report submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council on the “Right to Food” took aim at the entire basis on which food is produced and distributed on a global scale. Reflecting the type of progressive analysis of our food system from experts like Vandana Shiva and Michael Pollan, report author Olivier De Schutter called for an undermining of large agribusinesses and an infusion of democratic control.
Although the report’s recommendations are revolutionary, news of its release went largely unreported in the major U.S. media.
De Schutter, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, spent six years visiting more than a dozen countries and concluded that the world’s entire food system should be rebuilt, starting with the promotion of local, sustainable farming so that ordinary people have control over what they can grow and eat. This certainly does not sound radical to those of us in U.S. cities where there has been a rapid expansion of farmers markets and an explosion in backyard farming. But in poor American communities and in poor countries as a whole, it is a radical notion for food to be grown locally, sustainably and democratically.
The world’s food system is controlled by a handful of giant corporations, the majority of which are based in the U.S., such as ConAgra, Cargill and PepsiCo. These companies are a bottleneck through which most of the world’s food is forced, in order to feed most of the world’s people. Not only is this method environmentally unsustainable given its overreliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fossil fuels, but it is also inefficient at actually feeding people. The World Food Programme estimates that there are 842 million hungry people worldwide.
Posted by yurbud | Sat Mar 22, 2014, 12:54 PM (3 replies)