------------ New ------------

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation (Paperback)

~ Osie Gabriel Adelfang (Editor), Cindy Sheehan (Foreword), Amira Hass (Foreword)

   
Progressive Partners





United Progressives does not necessarily endorse the views of our contributors.

Search

Books by Anna Baltzer

Banner

Rethink Afghanistan

Order the complete Rethink Afghanistan documentary on DVD
Banner

Books by Members

Banner
Refresh page to see more titles.

Endorsements

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Endorses United Progressives Platform

Endorsements

Tennessee Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Chris Lugo endorses our platform

From FPIF

FPIF Latest Content
FPIF Latest Content
Campaign Financing
Voter Beware Concentrated Corporate Power is Creating Deceptive Elections PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Zeese   
Thursday, 26 August 2010 12:39

The Republican Party is Being Replaced with Secret Donors and Unlimited Donations as Concentrated Corporate Interests Spend Hundreds of Millions in the Mid-Term Elections

 

In the last week Democrats were gloating about how little money the Republican Party had in its campaign coffers. The Republican National Committee has just over $5 million in the bank for the final stretch of the 2010 midterm election campaign and is carrying over $2 million in debt.

These figures have Democrats jumping for joy, but their excitement is misplaced. The combination of Michael Steele and Citizens United is creating a paradigm shift in how elections are funded among Republicans. Rather than giving to the Republican Party, where Michael Steele controls the money, their name is made public and they are limited by regulation as to how much they can give, major donors have abandoned the RNC and are giving to 527 and 501(c)(4) organizations, which can also take money directly from corporations. This new approach to

Last Updated on Thursday, 26 August 2010 13:42
 
Senator Baucus Proposes Constitutional Amendment PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Wednesday, 28 July 2010 06:37
David Swanson On Tuesday, Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, proposed a new Constitutional Amendment that he described as a response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case earlier this year. That ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited money from their general funds to elect or defeat political candidates.

The DISCLOSE Act, a bill passed by the House that would regulate corporate election spending was blocked in the Senate on Thursday by a filibuster -- momentum is building to eliminate that anti-democratic tool.

And momentum is building, as well, for reforms of our campaign finance system that go beyond what the DISCLOSE Act would do.

“We have got to make sure elections remain in the hands of the people, it's a simple as that,” Baucus said. “We Montanans learned our lesson almost a century ago when the
 
U.S. Laws Rated Worst Value Per Dollar PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Monday, 24 May 2010 08:20

David SwansonA new international survey rates U.S. federal and state laws the worst legislative value in the world. The study considered laws' impact on human lives, and the price paid for laws in campaign contributions, issue advertising, lobbying, and bribes. While these expenses have provided an unequaled return on investment for some U.S. and international corporations, their value for the U.S. public turns out to be negative, and more severely negative the greater the expense. The study was conducted by an imaginary U.S. media outlet over a period of 60 seconds, during which it extracted its rostrum from its rectum.

In related news, the Sun News of Myrtle Beach, S.C., began an article on Friday with these words:

"Brad Dean arranged a meeting last year with gubernatorial candidate Gresham Barrett in which he gave Barrett an envelope of cashier's checks from local corporations linked to a former chamber board chairman, Dean and Barrett confirmed Thursday. There is no indication that Dean, president of the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, did anything illegal by delivering about $84,000 in campaign contributions to

 
Citizens United Against Citizens United PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Saturday, 27 March 2010 11:53

David SwansonEighty-five percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans tell pollsters when asked that they oppose the Supreme Court's decision in "Citizens United" which lifted limits on corporate political spending. I'm willing to bet that at least those same percentages would tell you the decision violates the U.S. Constitution. And I would bet that if you explained to people that the CU decision was based on the ideas that spending money on elections is speech and that corporations claim the First Amendment right to free speech which was meant for people, the numbers would increase.

Two observations. First, people, Congress, the White House, state governments, corporations, media outlets, and the Federal Elections Commission are, by and large, treating an unpopular and unconstitutional ruling as the law of the land, even though the ruling itself and others like it make amending the Constitution to fall in line with either the popular will or the obvious meaning of the existing Constitution more difficult -- yet still doable and desirable .

Second, if one political party in

 
Supreme Court Decision Exposes Need for Fundamental Electoral Reform in America PDF Print E-mail
Written by Kevin Gosztola   
Monday, 25 January 2010 11:57

Kevin GosztolaThe recent Supreme Court ruling that is widely believed to have opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections has many citizens of America upset over the prospect of a nation where corporate power may no longer have to answer to any state controls.

The Supreme Court decision is believed to have nullified decades of law that imposed restrictions on the way corporations can impact elections. Calls to overrule the decision are already mounting. But, if we assess the current state of our nation's managed democracy (a term from the great political philosopher Sheldon Wolin), does anyone really think that in the past decade regulations have actually prevented corporations from significantly influencing elections? Could corporate influence in elections really get anymore pervasive than it already is?

I'm just as inclined as the next liberal to look at the decision and lash out in opposition to it. I certainly empathize with Keith Olbermann's remark during his

Last Updated on Monday, 25 January 2010 13:09
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 2

Artwork by Nohad Nassif

Free Membership

By joining, it is understood that you support progressive values, as generally defined by our platform. Notice: We are currently having difficulties with attempts to log in using Internet Explorer v.6. For the moment we recommend using a different browser.

Members Online

None

Smart Bookmarker

Banner

Hiyam Noir Poetry

Hiyam Noir Avatar

"In the Toxic Garden"
those dead uncountable


The impossibilities
of my dreams
did not discourage me
from continuing to believe

so I am returning

as in my worst nightmares

more

Books We Recommend

The Bush dynasty, the powerful forces that put it in the White House, and what their influence means for America
Banner

News & Opinion

Think Progress
  • Nearly Half The Public Is ‘Very Uncomfortable’ With Phasing Out Social Security For Private Accounts

    A recently-released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll surveyed Americans on a variety of issues, including their views on the country’s direction, their approval of the president’s handling of the economy, and what they think of Congress’ performance.

    One section of the poll asked respondents how they would feel about a candidate who ran based on several different policy platforms. Respondents then replied whether they were enthusiastic about the platform, comfortable with it, had reservations about it, were very uncomfortable with the position, if it made no difference, or they weren’t sure. The results were listed numerically responding to each category from left to right.

    The two issues that netted the highest “uncomfortable” rating from poll respondents were Bush’s economic policies and Social Security privatization. 39 percent of those polled responded that they’d be uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who supported the economic polices of former president George W. Bush. But the position that provoked the highest level of opposition was supporting “phasing out Social Security and instead [supporting] allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” with 49 percent of respondents saying the position made them “very uncomfortable“:

    poll7

    While the poll shows that only 21 percent of the public is “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with slowly privatizing Social Security, there are a number of leading Republican officeholders who have endorsed the concept of doing so. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “ranking member on the House Budget Committee,” has put together a road map for privatizing the program that is similar to President Bush’s failed 2005 plan. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has also indicated that he’d like to revive the Bush effort. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has talked about the need to “wean” Americans off the program.

    Meanwhile, a number of leading Republicans running for office have also endorsed radical plans to privatize the program. Both Pennsylvania Republican senate candidate Pat Toomey and Rand Paul have endorsed at least partially privatizing Social Security. Nevada Republican senate candidate Sharon Angle has called for the program to be “phased out,” and Alaska Republican senate candidate Joe Miller has gone even further, declaring that the program is simply unconstitutional.

  • NM Corrections Secretary Refusing To Penalize Contract-Breaching Private Prison Company He Used To Work For

    joeThe escape of three detainees from a privately-run prison in Arizona last month “put the spotlight on…private prisons,” as critics of prison privatization pointed to the “lax oversight” of the private prison system as one reason the inmates were able to so easily break out of their facilities.

    Now, the New Mexico Independent (NMI) reports that neighboring state New Mexico is experiencing similar lax oversight as “the New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines.” The two prison operators in question, GEO Group, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), have been found to be understaffing the prisons they operate, not meeting contractual obligations.

    In an interview with NMI, New Mexico Corrections Secretary Joe Williams “acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow,” but said he “decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage ‘are outstanding.’” He explained that the prisons’ contract doesn’t say that he “shall” fine the companies for violating the terms of the agreement, but rather that he “can”:

    The New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines, state officials have told The Independent. [...]

    Williams acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow, but he decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage “are outstanding,” he said. “They are not having escapes; there are no substantial problems. If there were a problem I would be down there penalizing them,” he said. [...]

    “The contract does not say I shall do it. The contract says I can do it,” Williams told The Independent.

    In choosing not to penalize the GEO and CCA prisons for understaffing their facilities, Williams is far from an impartial arbiter. As his biography page on the New Mexico Corrections Department website boasts, in 1999, the “Geo Group, Inc. (formerly known as Wackenhut) hired Joe as the warden for the Lea County Correctional Facility, and charged him with turning around the troubled prison in Hobbs, New Mexico. The facility eventually became a flagship prison. Agreeing to serve as its warden proved to be the right move, both professionally and personally. In fact, Joe liked the city of Hobbs so much, he named his beloved basset hound Sir Hobbs.” It adds that Williams’ experience at GEO gave him “rare insight into the world of private corrections” and made him an “ideal candidate for the job he now holds.” The biography notes that the state’s incarceration system is “44 percent privatized, and leads the nation in prison privatization.”

    The Governor’s website notes that Williams is “the first private sector Warden ever to be selected to head a state correctional system in the nation.” It now appears that Williams still has some loyalty to his former employer, and in refusing to penalize GEO for its clear violation of its contract, is exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

  • Rick Scott’s Immigrant Running Mate Accused Of ‘Evading’ Questions On Immigration

    Last week, gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott (R-FL) tapped Jennifer Carroll (R-FL), an African American immigrant from Trinidad, to share the Republican ticket with him as lieutenant governor. “Working together, we will broaden the base of our party,” Scott said as he introduced Carroll. However, if Scott hopes to use Carroll to broaden a minority base that includes disgruntled Latino and immigrant voters who he has isolated via his hardline immigration stance, he may want to ask his running mate to brush up on her talking points. The Palm Beach Post published an awkward exchange between one of its reporters and Carroll:

    CARROLL: I agree with Rick and his position on legal immigration. Illegal immigration I do not support because I feel that we should not be rewarding illegal activities.

    PALM BEACH POST: But does that mean you support bringing an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law to Florida?

    CARROLL: Well let me you ask you back, what is your impression about Arizona-style immigration laws?

    PALM BEACH POST:What is my impression?

    CARROLL: Yes.

    PALM BEACH POST:It’s a law that requires police when enforcing other laws to check immigration status if there is a suspicion. [...]

    CARROLL: We haven’t gotten into the nitpicky as to how a bill is going to be crafted. There’s already a bill by Will Snyder that the House has already filed. What the containment of that bill is, how it is going to come out of the House or Senate, is another story

    PALM BEACH POST:Do you support Representative Snyder’s bill?

    CARROLL: I have not read the bill, so I cannot tell you.

    Watch it:

    During his primary against Bob McCollum (R-FL), Scott poured millions of dollars into ads supporting Arizona’s tough immigration law and advocating for one like it in Florida. Snyder’s immigration bill, which McCollum unveiled as part of his campaign platform, was largely a desperate response to Scott’s pandering on the issue. Since then, GOP Latino leaders have been publicly asking Scott to abandon his anti-immigrant rhetoric. So far, there is no indication that either he or his running mate is listening. Read more at the Wonk Room.

CB Workflows

Favorite Quotations

"We have to be willing to tell the hard truth about the power we have to corrupt the most pure, most sublime recognition of truth.

You can't finally tell the truth through the mind, because the mental process is busy with damage control. But there are a few questions you can ask to support truth telling, and you can deeply examine and ruthlessly, often painfully, answer them.

The questions are, 'What is my life standing for?' What has it stood for?' 'What is the deepest call for my life to stand for?' All you have to do is be really willing to look very carefully and see." - Gangaji