Victoria Collier, you're the daughter and niece of James and Kenneth Collier, authors of the book Votescam: The Stealing of America , a chronicle of their 25-year investigation into how elections are rigged by computerized voting machines. Victoria is the editor of www.votescam.org. I've run across a number of your most recent op ed pieces including What To Do When They "Let" Us Win Elections and Why Americans Viciously Protect Their Hub Caps But Not Their Ballots: A Thoughtful Exploration of Modern Democracy.
This is kind of like Jimmy Carter, How sometimes the best person doesn't make the best president, because they lack the ability to persuade the caucus or play the politician.
All machines have their friction;
and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate,
it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes
to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let
us not have such a machine any longer.
"This
principle being admitted, the justice of every particular case of resistance
is reduced to a computation of the quantity of the danger and grievance
on the one side, and of the probability and expense of redressing it on
the other."(
there be
some absolute goodness somewhere; for that will leaven the whole lump.(15)
There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to
the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming
themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands
in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do,
It
is not so important that many should be as good as you, as that
Practically speaking, the opponents to a reform in Massachusetts are not
a hundred thousand politicians at the South, but a hundred thousand merchants
and farmers here, who are more interested in commerce and agriculture than
they are in humanity, and are not prepared to do justice to the slave and
to Mexico, cost what it may.
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight
moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions;
and betting naturally accompanies it.
There is but little virtue in the action
of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition
of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because
there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They
will then be the only slaves.
"I should like to have them order me out to help put down
an insurrection of the slaves, or to march to Mexico; — see if I would
go";
ow many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country?
Hardly one. Does not America offer any inducement
for men to settle here? The American has dwindled
into an Odd Fellow (17) — one
who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and
a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance; whose first and
chief concern,
and yet these very men have each, directly by their allegiance, and
so indirectly, at least, by their money, furnished a substitute
"You don't have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don't have to wait to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote," Obama said. "You don't have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains."
The reason why Democrats so often ignore and betray progressives is that we haven't given them incentives not to. Money, votes, and publicity are what count, and so far progressives have not leveraged these incentives effectively. Also, Democrats really need some leaders who are functional in the worlds of bluffing, bargaining, gambling, and fighting.
As of mid-August 2009, there were six (6) lobbyists per single (1) member of House and Senate (Bloomberg News). That's 6:1, folks. Just for healthcare reform. For financial industry reform, there are 2,400 lobbyists in play. The Chamber of Commerce spent $26.2 million--in the first 2 quarters (6 months) of 2009. Clearly, private industries and their foot soldiers on K Street/Capitol Hill influence/dictate American policymaking. No matter who's 'voted in,' it's the influence machine that rules Washington. Worse, there's a good chance that the Supreme Court will grant corporations (as 'fictive persons') to spend unlimited dollars in funding electoral campaigns. Is there hope that this country will be a democracy one day? Or is it doomed to become increasingly, irrevocably plutocratic?
Kos himself where he says they should either remove the mandate or kill the bill.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/15/814776/-Remove-mandate,-or-kill-this-bill
So a few short months ago, they should kill the bill if the mandates were not removed but now Kucinich should be villified for refusing to vote for the bill that still has the mandates in it? Kucinich may or may not be a Nader, but Kos is a Palin and this is his very own bridge to nowhere.
"In January of 2009, Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. This was seen as a tremendous move, as Johnsen had the experience, the expertise and an apparent eagerness to take on the job of unraveling a series of horrible legal opinions that had been issued to support the torture program put into place during the Bush administration. Sadly, though, even with 60 votes for Johnsen clearly within reach for an extended time, Obama chose not to fight for Johnsen's confirmation. As a result, once it became clear that another Supreme Court nomination was going to be necessary, Johnsen withdrew from consideration, knowing that Obama had abandoned her."
What should our priorities be for the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight? What hearings would you like to see? What contract or program needs additional oversight? What laws, regulations, and policies need to be changed? I'll need all the suggestions and support I can get -- I'll draw heavily on your input as we move forward toward a system that better serves the government and the taxpayer. -Senator Claire McCaskill
*I've been very critical of HCR (1+ / 0-)Obama, and the whole process and what appears that the end result will be. What would be enough for the democrats opposed to the bill to support it?
Personally speaking, I recognize that it's never going to be perfect. But the sticking point is forcing people to buy a product from a private company without any effective cost control measures. That's it, anything else I can work with.
So for me, I would need either the mandate taken out, strict cost regulation added, or a non-profit pulic option added.
What about the rest of you?
by Skellen on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:59:13 AM PST[ Reply to This | Recommend ]
REPLY by .@avivao: Mandate to buy private insurance? (0 / 0)Exactly. A mandate to buy from private insurers (who're already raising rates in advance of the bill's passage--a way of gaming medical loss ratios, etc.) must be counterbalanced by a substantive public plan (Medicare for All or Medicare for More would be the most expeditious way to go, I suspect). Also, the mandate will surely cause suffering "down the road" unless regulation of insurers is actually enforceable.
Still, we must pass this #HCR bill, I think. I'm extremely worried about (1) passing it with a unilateral mandate; (2) not passing it because of a unilateral mandate.
How did we get trapped like this? What went wrong? Sure; a lot has gone right. I don't deny it. I'm glad. But we're backed into a corner now on passing this health bill. If we don't pass it, the news is very, very bad. If we do pass it, the news is probably very,very bad (for a different constellation of reasons).
I say: #PassTheDamnBill. But I'm very disturbed by the potential consequences of doing so. There are many benefits to this bill; I pray that the liabilities don't outweigh them. We'll see.
by avivagabriel on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:56:59 AM PST[ Parent | Reply to This ]