• http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets

Anyone want to talk about this? I'm torn between feelings of loyalty to my friends who work at the state department whose lives may be made more difficult by this (some of whom really believe that they are doing good work abroad), and my aversion to secrecy. In the end, I think the more we talk about what our government does abroad, the better. Please create a new topic if you have a lot to add. I don't think I've said much, so maybe you can add something valuable. -- DRussellKraft - 06 Dec 2010

• http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/1811224/Yale-Law-Student-Wants-Government-To-Have-Everybodys-DNA

My favorite comment on the thread: "'Your sensitive genetic information would be safe.' Is there a Sith Lord running Yale?" -- DevinMcDougall - 16 Mar 2010

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word “capitalism” throughout their texts with the “free-enterprise system.”

“Let’s face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation,” said one conservative member, Terri Leo. “You know, ‘capitalist pig!’ ”

-- GloverWright - 13 March 2009 -- GloverWright - 13 Mar 2010

• I came across an article in Rolling Stone a few years ago about this organization, but haven't seen much about it since then. The story is now getting some play again because of Bart Stupak's association with it. Makes you think about the firm hold religious beliefs have on the development of law.

• ...and they rejected that proposal. -- DRussellKraft - 08 Mar 2010

The Swiss are considering providing free lawyers for animals.

Q: What electoral policies should the U.S. left be pursuing? Or are we already focused too much on electoral efforts?

A: I’d say we’re focused too much on electoral efforts. To me, the most promising thing would be to organize around very specific issues, like living wage or single-payer campaigns – things that have great potential appeal and can unite a lot of constituencies in a common struggle. I wouldn’t rule out electoral politics, of course – you don’t want to give up on the state. But nothing higher than the House. When you get to the Senate, and especially the presidential level, you’re on the bourgeoisie’s terrain. None of the third-party or insurgent Dem campaigns -- Jackson, Nader, Kucinich, McKinney, whatever -- has ever broken away from the cult of personality trap and become an occasion for a real national organizing effort. A presidential campaign just isn’t the place to do that sort of thing, something that the last 20 or 30 years has pretty conclusively proved. It’s best to organize independent movements and parties that might, if we’re lucky, force the higher-ups to take notice. I was impressed, in reading that debased bit of political gossip Game Change, to learn how bent out of shape Hillary Clinton was by the complaints of the antiwar movement. She was really concerned, and her husband spent hours in the King David Hotel, of all places, writing a devious letter on her behalf, meant to defuse the opposition’s threat. It was all bullshit, of course, but it shows that an active left can have an influence even on the most centrist of Dems. That lesson seems to have been lost, at least until now, in relation to the Obama administration, whose various offenses have been denied, excused, or indulged by unions, peaceniks, greens, and other people who should be behaving better.

-- GloverWright - 2 March 2010

<--/commentPlugin-->

Links about Politics

-- DRussellKraft - 06 Mar 2010