<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: Nader in Omaha </title> <atom:link href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nader-in-omaha&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nader-in-omaha</link> <description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Science, Religion, Media and Culture</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:32:45 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <item> <title> By: Melissa Wright </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/comment-page-1/#comment-52773</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Melissa Wright]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 07:32:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=9415#comment-52773</guid> <description><![CDATA[I wish you would've told me that Nader was in town! I would've loved to go along!! ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish you would've told me that Nader was in town! I would've loved to go along!! </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Jay Fraz </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/comment-page-1/#comment-52691</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay Fraz]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:49:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=9415#comment-52691</guid> <description><![CDATA[I suppose that is why the wealthy have needed tax cuts, they couldn't afford to save us otherwise. Luckily the government won't save us now and we can depend on the charity of the wealthy and free market. You know, just like in 3rd world hell holes. I'm tired. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suppose that is why the wealthy have needed tax cuts, they couldn't afford to save us otherwise. Luckily the government won't save us now and we can depend on the charity of the wealthy and free market. You know, just like in 3rd world hell holes.</p> <p>I'm tired. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Brynn Jacobs </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/comment-page-1/#comment-52687</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brynn Jacobs]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:29:16 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=9415#comment-52687</guid> <description><![CDATA[I forgot to mention that a <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece" rel="nofollow">real-life summit of the super-rich</a> has already occurred. They met with the goal of curbing overpopulation, and a guest described it thusly: <blockquote>“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.” </blockquote>They are solely focusing on overpopulation, not the democracy deficit in the US (as Nader would urge). Don't get me wrong, solving overpopulation would solve lots of other correlated problems. And I guess at least <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/30/what-if-there-were-far-too-many-people-on-earth-but-no-one-had-the-courage-to-talk-about-it/" rel="nofollow">some people are now talking about it</a>. With all that big-brain, independent thinking these billionaires did, the best they could come up with was capping the population level by 2050 at 8.3 billion, instead of 9.3. At 8.3 billion, it's still a 26% increase from today's 6.7 billion. I hope that's aggressive enough. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot to mention that a <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6350303.ece" rel="nofollow">real-life summit of the super-rich</a> has already occurred. They met with the goal of curbing overpopulation, and a guest described it thusly:</p> <blockquote><p>“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.” </p></blockquote> <p>They are solely focusing on overpopulation, not the democracy deficit in the US (as Nader would urge). Don't get me wrong, solving overpopulation would solve lots of other correlated problems. And I guess at least <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/11/30/what-if-there-were-far-too-many-people-on-earth-but-no-one-had-the-courage-to-talk-about-it/" rel="nofollow">some people are now talking about it</a>.</p> <p>With all that big-brain, independent thinking these billionaires did, the best they could come up with was capping the population level by 2050 at 8.3 billion, instead of 9.3. At 8.3 billion, it's still a 26% increase from today's 6.7 billion. I hope that's aggressive enough. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Brynn Jacobs </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/comment-page-1/#comment-52685</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brynn Jacobs]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:15:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=9415#comment-52685</guid> <description><![CDATA[Erich- I couldn't agree more. I really enjoy all of the reporting done by Democracy Now, and I agree that they ought to serve as a model for others to follow. And in fact, Nader has had no problems getting interviews there (see <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/21/ralph_nader_on_the_g20_healthcare" rel="nofollow">here,</a> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/2/ralph_nader_and_labor_professor_harley" rel="nofollow">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/14/you_dont_cut_deals_with_the" rel="nofollow">here</a>). And I think you've put your finger on the real issue, which is that money equals speech. Of course everyone has a theoretically equal right to free speech, but practically speaking, some people can buy more equality than others. How can you help but feel disheartened to realize that's the case? How does one begin to make changes to an entrenched, corrupt campaign finance system in which everyone benefits but people without money (and therefore without influence or even access)? ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erich-</p> <p>I couldn't agree more. I really enjoy all of the reporting done by Democracy Now, and I agree that they ought to serve as a model for others to follow. And in fact, Nader has had no problems getting interviews there (see <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/21/ralph_nader_on_the_g20_healthcare" rel="nofollow">here,</a> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/2/ralph_nader_and_labor_professor_harley" rel="nofollow">here,</a> and <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/14/you_dont_cut_deals_with_the" rel="nofollow">here</a>).</p> <p>And I think you've put your finger on the real issue, which is that money equals speech. Of course everyone has a theoretically equal right to free speech, but practically speaking, some people can buy more equality than others. How can you help but feel disheartened to realize that's the case? How does one begin to make changes to an entrenched, corrupt campaign finance system in which everyone benefits but people without money (and therefore without influence or even access)? </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/01/nader-in-omaha/comment-page-1/#comment-52683</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:42:56 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=9415#comment-52683</guid> <description><![CDATA[Brynn: The most compelling and disturbing part of your post, for me, was the story about Terri Gross. We've simply GOT to get past the point where the major media outlets (including NPR) pre-ordain who is a "serious candidate" based on the amount of money they are piling up. We need clean (= publicly financed) elections. Although NPR is far more serious in reporting news and presenting viewpoints than other American commercial networks. NPR often doesn't have the guts to call news the way it needs to be called. To compare, just watch Amy Goodman's <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/1/stream" rel="nofollow">DemocracyNow</a> to see how it needs to be done. Too many well entrenched talking heads appear on NPR. Far too many, which is not surprising given the huge chunk of its budget that NPR takes in from big corporations. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NPR" rel="nofollow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NPR</a> Money = speech nowadays. It shouldn't and we should change the system to make sure that those without money can sit at the same table with the monied folks and to be considered for their viewpoints at election time. But that is all a distant fantasy. Hence, Nader's conclusion that we need to super-rich to step in and save us. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brynn:</p> <p>The most compelling and disturbing part of your post, for me, was the story about Terri Gross. We've simply GOT to get past the point where the major media outlets (including NPR) pre-ordain who is a "serious candidate" based on the amount of money they are piling up. We need clean (= publicly financed) elections. </p> <p>Although NPR is far more serious in reporting news and presenting viewpoints than other American commercial networks. NPR often doesn't have the guts to call news the way it needs to be called. To compare, just watch Amy Goodman's <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/1/stream" rel="nofollow">DemocracyNow</a> to see how it needs to be done. Too many well entrenched talking heads appear on NPR. Far too many, which is not surprising given the huge chunk of its budget that NPR takes in from big corporations. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NPR" rel="nofollow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NPR</a> </p> <p>Money = speech nowadays. It shouldn't and we should change the system to make sure that those without money can sit at the same table with the monied folks and to be considered for their viewpoints at election time. But that is all a distant fantasy. </p> <p>Hence, Nader's conclusion that we need to super-rich to step in and save us. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>