Name one good reason to oppose this campaign spending disclosure proposal

How can any honest person or business oppose a campaign spending disclosure law like this one described by Alternet?

It's a good rule of thumb: If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- the trade association for large corporations -- is whipped up about something, there's probably good reason for the public to strongly back whatever has sent the Chamber into fits.

Well, the Chamber is apoplectic over a modest Obama administration proposed executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of their campaign-related spending.

What the Chamber fears is that the new law would would require disclosures regarding "secret contributions that corporations funnel through trade associations and front groups to influence elections," and this would include the Chamber itself.

Continue ReadingName one good reason to oppose this campaign spending disclosure proposal

War on What’s Next?

Americans don't seem to understand much of anything unless we restate it in a war-metaphor: War on Drugs War on Terror War on Poverty War on Science War on Democracy And now there is a "War Against Floods," which we battle with the "Army Corp of Engineers." And I forgot to mention some of the other wars: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWar on What’s Next?

We consume

At Truthout, Ellen Dannen points out that we live almost entirely in the present, as consumers:

As consumers, we live today in a perpetual now, ingesting and eliminating. But our ancestors understood the importance of being conservative, of conserving. They saw the value of building infrastructure of lasting value - not thinking only of themselves - but building also for their children and progeny yet to be. They understood, as did Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the taxes they paid were the price of admission to life in a civilized society. They understood that to live in a civil society required providing real nourishment, including the best education possible, for everyone. That society at least gave lip service to the principle that, "What you have done to the least of these you have done to me." The things they produced and created still contribute to our security and progress. Among other things, they created a high-quality, heavily subsidized system of education that eliminated cost as a bar and made our country a leader in so many areas. We would be better off today had we properly valued their investment in us, rather than having consumed and destroyed so much of that inheritance.
I consider this issue often. If one were really to implement "family values," would we be trashing the planet and failing to plan for the future? Wouldn't we be obsessed with making sure that our children will have access to a well-cared-for planet on which they can live out their lives, one they can hand to their children? But as a government, we really do seem to be living in the present, dealing with the disasters as they arise rather than taking steps to avoid them. We excel at kicking the can down the road just a bit, putting off for another day.

Continue ReadingWe consume

An excellent primer on net neutrality

Net Neutrality is not about government takeover of the Internet.   This claim of a government takeover is a lie being spread by Republicans who have taken steps to give the big telecoms control over the kinds of programs you can make use of over the Internet and the kind of content that is freely accessible. Please, take a only a minute or two, to join me and take action on this critical issue. Your voice is needed to counteract AT&T's annual $15 Million in campaign contributions, and 93 full-time lobbyists. In this video, Senator Al Franken explains net neutrality, using YouTube as the perfect example. I've been following this issue closely for several years, but I've never before heard net neutrality explained more clearly than Senator Franken explains it here:

Continue ReadingAn excellent primer on net neutrality