Advertisement

What if we had politicians who believed in the abolition of war with as much passion as the Republican right believes in the abolition of taxes?

For me, the question that immediately follows is: What kind of politics draws power from resources other than the deep pockets of billionaires? Just because the world is sick of war, how will that ever translate into serious political action to defund standing armies and ongoing weapons research? How will it ever cohere into a consensus that has political traction? Does Washington, D.C. only have room for one consensus?

For the Democrats to stand moderately tough against GOP right-wing zealots in defense of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Social Security, there’s no way they could also — even if they wanted to — stand tough on, let us say, nuclear disarmament or a movement toward demilitarization. Such concepts aren’t on or anywhere near the fabled “table” of national debate; they’re as marginalized as segregated restrooms. This is a deep problem from the point of view of anyone looking clear-eyed into the future.

“‘They were all dying,’ she said, ‘and there was no medicine,
BANGKOK, Thailand -- Muslims in prosperous Singapore are spending more money when they travel on a religious haj pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, compared with previous years when they scrimped and saved, and they are also now going when they are younger.

"Decades back, the pilgrims went in their 50s and 60s. Now, we even have people in their 20s willing to perform the haj," said geopolitics professor Cedomir Nestorovic at the Singapore campus of the ESSEC Business School Paris-Singapore.

"This was unimaginable 50 years ago. They have the money, and when they go, they want the best," Nestorovic told Singapore's Straits Times newspaper.

"The first thing we have to stress, the haj is a spiritual journey. So for those lucky enough to go, this is the journey of their lives," said the French professor, who also teaches marketing in Islamic communities.

The average Singaporean pilgrim pays US $10,400 for a 30-day package tour to Mecca, Nestorovic said.

Many Singaporeans pay extra because they can afford upmarket hotels and luxury package tours.

Singapore's deals are less expensive compared with its northern
When video of the October 14th edition of Thom Hartmann's TV show appears online (here) it will include him asking me to justify not attacking Hitler. Thom has asked me this repeatedly during multiple appearances on his show, each time a little differently, and each time provocatively. He's right to ask it, and he's been right in some of the answers he's helped provide in the asking.

Without Hitler, the U.S. military would collapse.

For 68 years, wars on poor countries have been justified by the pretended discovery of Hitler's reincarnation. Each time it has turned out to be a false alarm. Every post-WWII war looks disastrous or at least dubious in retrospect to most people. And yet, the justification of the next war is always ready to hand, because the real, original Hitler remains alive in our memories, and he just might come back -- who's to say?

Actually, I think anyone vaguely aware of basic facts about the current world ought to be able to say that Hitler is gone for good.

How do I justify not going to war with Hitler, beyond explaining that Assad isn't Hitler, Gadaffi isn't Hitler, Hussein isn't Hitler, and so on?
Although I am an adoptee rights activist I seldom read adoption books outside of topics I have a specific interest in. I almost always avoid memoirs. To be honest, most are awful. It may be good therapy to write your adoption story, but please leave it in your desk drawer!

Michael Allen Potter's The Last Invisible Continent: Essays on Adoption and Identity is quite a different story. I've been familiar with Mike's work for several years. I knew this book (currently on Kindle) would be important.

Unlike the typical weepy adoption memoir this one is hard and gritty. It's of the street, but also of the heart. Mike doesn't pull any punches about his mother's mental illness, his battle with alcohol, or his rotten adoption, which he discusses almost in passing, though it it obviously the core of his essays. He calls his work "brutal yet equatable.”

On last Tuesday October 8 at 10:00 a.m. the day that the United States Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on McCutcheon vs. FEC, Ohio PIRG held a press conference outside the Ohio Supreme Court on Front Street, just south of W. Broad. Street in downtown Columbus. Speaking at the press conference were representatives of Ohio PIRG, Common Cause, Move to Amend, Communication Workers of America, and the Sierra Club.

Alabama political donor Shaun McCutcheon has asked the court to strike down the overall limit on what an individual can give to federal candidates, parties, and PACs in a two year election cycle. That limit currently stands at $123,200 – over twice the average household income in the U.S. In 2012, only 1,219 donors came within 10% of hitting the aggregate limit. New research from U.S. PIRG and Demos projects that if the limit is lifted, this small set of donors would raise their giving and inject an additional $1 billion in campaign contributions through the 2020 elections.

By now, most Americans know that fast-food employees like me can’t make ends meet on the low wages we make. What they might not know is that because employers like McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King refuse to pay us a living wage, the cost of our basic healthcare and basic needs are transferred to taxpayers in the form of public assistance.

The American people shouldn't be forced to underwrite the profits of fast-food companies that refuse to pay workers a fair, living wage. That's why I started my own campaign on CREDOMobilize.com, which allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, Domino's, Subway, and Papa John's, says the following:

On October 15 in partnership with USA Today The Ohio State University (OSU) sponsored the third in a series of panels by the Bipartisan Policy Center's Commission on Political Reform. The Center intends to hold a series of town hall style meetings to build the appearance of national consensus around policy recommendations they intend to offer Congress and the President in 2014. The event took place on the same day that the Center and USA Today released a joint poll claiming that most Americans support the Center's conclusions.

The event featured two panels, each with a moderator who asked questions, and took written and vetted questions from the audience and the internet. Questioners were required to list their affiliation along with their name on the tiny question sheets. Unscripted questions from the press and audience were not permitted during the panels. Broadcast teams from C-SPAN and a Los Angles based media outlet that declined to identify itself covered the event. The Lantern, the OSU student paper with advertising and business departments operated by USA TODAY, also ran a story on the event.

For a country that prides itself on the transparency with which it governs, the United States has suffered a few too many hiccups of late. Even by the standards of many politically unfastened observers, revelations concerning the data collection behavior of the National Security Agency were enough to raise eyebrows. No matter where one comes down on the timeless debate between civil liberties and national security, transparency was forfeited in the interim. Now, due to the vigilance of UN investigator Ben Emmerson, another spotlight will be directed toward a controversial American operation: drone strikes.

In a freshly released report, Emmerson outlines a demand for the United States to make its drone program more transparent as it relates to civilian casualties. A policy carried out by the CIA, drone strikes are not known for their propensity to operate in a transparent manner. Indeed, many in the international community have called upon the U.S. to make this shift in the direction of clarity before.

Before Fox News, there was the Daily Mail. If Fox News is a howling Tea Partier, the Daily Mail is his even more insane great uncle, the old master, the one who invented the game. For over a century they have printed stories to support their fantasy dreamland of ordinary white Britain being besieged by homosexuality, immigration, socialism, and, damn and blast, wind farms. Their incendiary covers, each a screaming declaration of impending doom for British society as we know it, are infamous. But for the last fortnight the senile, deluded grandpa of classic British misanthropy has kicked up an almighty fuss, just to remind us that he's still in the game, and that he's still got teeth.

Conference season has just passed, and Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party, announced that if he was elected Prime Minister in 2015 he would freeze all energy prices for 20 months. This essentially 'won' the conference season for him; it shored up the left of his party after a difficult summer, overshadowed would-be damaging headlines about old party skulduggery in which Miliband was partly involved, and trumped the Conservatives' own offerings, which were either tawdry or bizarre.
Google Inc. is now aligned with the notorious ALEC.

Quietly, Google has joined ALEC -- the American Legislative Exchange Council -- the shadowy corporate alliance that pushes odious laws through state legislatures.

In the process, Google has signed onto an organization that promotes such regressive measures as tax cuts for tobacco companies, school privatization to help for-profit education firms, repeal of state taxes for the wealthy and opposition to renewable energy disliked by oil companies.

ALEC’s reactionary efforts -- thoroughly documented [1] by the Center for Media and Democracy -- are shameful assaults on democratic principles. And Google is now among the hundreds of companies in ALEC [2]. Many people who’ve admired Google are now wondering: how could this be?

Well, in his recent book “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet Against Democracy,” Robert W. McChesney provides vital context. “It is true that with the advent of the Internet many of the successful giants -- Apple and Google come to mind -- were begun by idealists who may have been uncertain whether they really wanted to

Pages

Subscribe to ColumbusFreePress.com  RSS