thanks. i like your style and your depth of inquiry/understanding.
what do you do?

In reply to this comment by Diogenes:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/criticalthud" title="member since February 15th, 2010" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#008800">criticalthud
man, i honestly think it's a hopeless can of worms... and imho, i believe that the continued advance of technology means that even our best efforts in "regulation" or making "fair" the process of political advocacy... well, i think we're always going to be lagging behind

first off, to even discuss the matter we need to divorce ourselves from our partisan political leanings (conservative talk radio, liberal press, wingnut internet content)

next, we need to avoid where possible the all-too-convenient labels, such as "corporatism", as it's much too vague - better to just understand that "big money" will inevitably lead to undue influence peddling in our political process

we should also understand the types of regulations or statutes that were tried (and failed) in the past, i.e. fairness doctrine, equal-time rule, and even the implications of miami herald publishing co. v. tornillo

we also need to reach some kind of concensus on both relevant first amendment provisions, e.g. freedom of speech and and freedom of the press (the latter being a certain candidate for the "big money" moniker) - any tinkering we do here carries disturbing implications

and finally, what the heck are we to do with the internet, where both the speed and pervasiveness of political advocacy easily avails itself to abuse from "big money" - just try imagining how we'd regulate big money from filtering through pacs to banner ads, popups, blogs and web-hosting

all that said... dude, i feel lost as to where to even begin forming a coherent solution - sorry

>> ^Diogenes:

@criticalthud
let's be really clear... i agree with your position on corporate personhood
but... we can use "citizens united" to abbreviate the scotus decision: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission... and how that decision has overturned several previous legal precedents and aspects of bcra -- and we can also use "citizens united" to refer directly to the non-profit group of the same name...
i'm just pointing out the latter (the npo) filed suit against the fec because they felt that a media corporation (moore, et al) was violating bcra - the fec dismissed their complaint -- then the group made a similar 'documentary' about hillary clinton and promoted it with the same style and timing of moore's anti-bush film - a lower court barred it, stating that it violated the bcra -- this background led us to the troubling scotus decision
what i was pointing out was that bcra, etc, was already allowing corporate political advocacy through the media, i.e. movie producers, book publishers, newspaper conglomerates, and television networks, etc
this, imho, is what really muddies the waters


thanks i really appreciate the clarification. muddy waters for sure. You raise some good points. Especially in distinguishing an over-reach of political influence from entertainment and documentary media. But are we getting to the point where campaign finance legislation will necessarily intrude on free press and the works of film-makers? what is your take? I would prefer to think that legislation could and should be narrowly tailored in this instance.
and (edit)
@bmacs24 I think it makes sense to start with the fundamental underlying legal ambiguity by which the power grab occurs. The war on "terror" is another ambiguous area of laws that also leads to incredible abuse.
Otherwise you find yourself caught in the minutiae, trying to re-arrange the top bricks on the shit-stack

>> ^ToastyBuffoon:

>> ^DuoJet:
If / when "the establishment" becomes truly concerned about Ron Paul, they'll have him killed.

As much as I shrug off most conspiracy theories, this wouldn't surprise me in the least with all the paranoia of him possibly winning the Republican nomination.


I would openly revolt if someone like him or Kucinich was assassinated.

by accident, @marinara?

How do you accidentally open fire on protestors?


This is an excellent article on the events:
New Kent State Video Evidence Points Towards FBI Provocateuring


The word “Guard!” can be heard around 11 seconds. “All right, prepare to fire” begins at around 20.5 seconds. “Get down!” is spoken at 23 seconds. The final “Guard!” is at about 25 seconds, and the gunshots begin at 27.5 seconds.


The order to fire directly contradicts claims from guard commanders who testified that there was no order to fire and that troops unloaded their weapons only after receiving incoming sniper fire.

The tape was given to Yale in 1979 for its Kent State archives by an attorney who represented students in a lawsuit filed against the state over the shooting. It was originally recorded by a student named Terry Strubbe who put a microphone at the window of his dorm, which overlooked the rally.

Subsequent analysis of the tape also uncovered an altercation and four pistol shots a little over one minute prior to the Guard gunfire. It is believed that the shots came from Terry Norman, who was at the time believed to have been an FBI informant.

Despite attempts by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to pave the way for a new federal investigation, the evidence has remained largely ignored.

Thanks to this vote, Ohioan taxpayers are now BACK on the hook for 66 billion dollars in government union pensions. That's JUST the pensions, nothing else.

Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class.

This is how the people who control the emotional state of left-wingers fool you.

"We're losing a hand, but that's OK, because the Rich Guy is losing an arm!"







>> ^jcf79:

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

I like Ron Paul... I probably would not vote for him, instead I would just not vote at all and give into bitterness. But, if Dennis Kucinich gets involved as Pauls running mate I will be absolutely sold on the idea of voting for them.

I seriously have me some man love for Kucinich. He is an angel from a different dimension where Spock mated with elves and they formed a utopian society by bonding over Working Class Hero, fighting off the evil mages and making love to fine women.

I agree with a lot of what blankfist is saying. It's time to starve the Federal government of its funds. Enough of its actions are immoral and evil, and I don't like having even a cent of my money furthering these actions.

I like Kucinich and Ron Paul too. Kucinich because if we are going to be taxed heavily by the government, the money should be spent well and in morally correct ways. But he's not running for President anymore and even if he was, most of what he supports would not get passed by Congress. So it's pointless to keep funding the Feds and hope that a Kucinich will some day become President and that hundreds of Kucinichs will some day take over Congress too.

So Ron Paul is all that's left, even though there's quite a bit of crazy stuff connected to him. At least with Paul's ideology, I can choose to support different causes with my money, and I can stop giving money to causes that start acting evil or immoral.

I don't think it's right to force people to help each other. If we are saying that we need to put a gun to the heads of the rich and force them to help the poor, sick, and elderly, that seems wrong to me. And that's what a lot of people seem to want. They want to use the force of law, backed by the threats of punishment and violence, to force rich people to help other people.

When I was in high school in 1999, I read a book on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and how the world ignored the Genocide Convention of 1948, which required them to act when genocide occurs in the world. I was pretty pissed off that 400,000-1.2 million people were killed in Rwanda for genocidal reasons, and everyone ignored the Convention and did little about the genocide. But looking back, I don't think anyone should've signed the Genocide Convention. You shouldn't force people to help someone or some other country. It's wrong.

>> ^Peroxide:

blankfist, who do you support politically? I ask this because you take issue with the wars and bailouts, but I am quite sure that the Reps would never stop doing those things, however you seem to support them.
So just who do you think has the answer? You seem to always argue against more progressive videos, and while the democrats aren't in truth, that progressive, Americans have TWO fucking choices...
If you wish for more than two choices, then why don't you bring up electoral reform in your arguments, or accountability reforms, or direct democracy? Why do you always just demonize progressive taxation?


I support Ron Paul for the most part. I like Kucinich okay. There are some other smaller candidates I've supported here and there. I don't support any one party. And I'm certainly not a Republican.

I think questions like this "So just who do you think has the answer?" are part of the problem. We have this endemic belief from all being raised in this system that it's good and it only needs the right "leader" to push it in the right direction. I don't buy that. I think we need to really take a long hard look at what the word "free" means when we look at our free society. That's all. I just want whatever affords people the most liberty. It's that simple.

Honesty has nothing to do with morals at all. If he attacks the left, and believes the programs are doomed to fail, then that is his preference. If I tell a woman, "Your children are fat, stupid and selfish," she will flip out--even if done nicely. Even if done to save the child's life and give the child a chance.

Honesty is a cruel thing, but is necessary. Ron Paul is honest, even when he doesn't know he is being honest (Which annoys me.)

America will burn as a nation so long as we remain overweight (You can buy soda with food stamps...lovely huh?) We will burn as long as we promote confidence over humility. We will burn as long as we think 9/11 just magically fucking happened. As long as we prop up corporations with corporate-friendly laws. As long as we think we deserve something for nothing. Our culture is useless and will falter, regardless of stimulus, universal healthcare, welfare, WIC, Unemployment insurance, etc. I favor most of these programs for the needy, but then in this culture it does not good, does it? Because we are entitled and greedy.

Paul admits to these--even if every other politician is to busy sucking every Americans cocks and teats to admit it.

Also, Paul supports liberal causes, just in personal choice. This is not dishonest; perhaps stupidity, but not dishonesty.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."
On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?


Working backwards:

1. Paul isn't honest.
   
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.
   
3. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks Stewart is "honest" because he attacks the Democrats, which apparently Paul thinks is rare for the left to do.
   
4. Paul's "respect" for this "honesty" is further amplified by the fact that Stewart gives him a platform to spread his ideology unchallenged to a new audience.
   
5. Paul has the same "respect" for Kucinich -- Kucinich often attacks the Democrats from the left, and therefore Paul has "respect" for Kucinich's "honesty."
   

Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.

He's willing to cultivate "friendships" with these people because it serves his own nefarious agenda-driven hackery. The upshot of what he's saying to his fellow libertarians at Mises is "go out and cultivate friendships like this, to help further our side in the battle against liberalism."

On the surface, it sounds like he's saying nice things about Stewart. But if you really parse what he's saying, then it sounds pretty sick and twisted.

>> ^NetRunner:

I suppose in this sense Ron Paul is a "fan" of Jon Stewart because he will give Ron Paul airtime to talk about his bent ideology.
Meh.


Why is he then best friends with Kucinich? Why does everything have to be personal? Can't he just respect Stewart's fascinating honesty? And with that, the part of Stewart's honesty that incorporates and shows off Paul's honesty?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?

Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.
Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?
I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.
Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?
PS: How do you like them apples cherries!


I don't think we should have compulsory healthcare. I think in a post-industrialized free nation we should have something better. But that would require the government getting out of healthcare altogether and letting the free market care for people. I understand that scares most of you.

But he's right that churches and hospitals used to care for people. Then sometime in the '60s (pardon me for being too tired right now to research it and find links) government got involved and it all went to shit. They got involved and started telling people how healthcare should be run. How doctors and physicians could care for people. And who could and couldn't give treatment. Also it's government's fault we tend to get health insurance through our work, which drives up costs. Again, I apologize for not getting you links, but maybe some other time. Tired and it's dinner time.

Now we have big corporate health insurance companies that are more of the problem. They get away with murder. Pun intended. I'd like to see the entire thing reformed, but not your one-size-fits-all-steal-peoples-money-to-fund-it way.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that
We can make your dream of universal taxpayer-funded health care come true! I'll be counting on your support when the GOP tries to repeal Obamacare.
It'll be you, me, and Dennis Kucinich out there yelling for single payer, and getting shouted down by Ron Paul and all the rest of the libertarian and conservative movements who want to make sure we let people die if they can't pay for the treatment they need.

How are those cherries tasting you've been picking?


Wait, you didn't really mean it? My heart is broken.

Does this mean you'd let him die if he couldn't pay?

I'm just asking if failure to pay for a service means you shouldn't get that service, no matter how dire your need for it is. If we were talking about someone buying cherries, you wouldn't be dodging the question, you'd be pretty steadfast in saying "you don't pay, you don't get cherries", because that's what the law of property demands.

Well, substitute "life-saving medical treatment" for cherries. Do the laws change, or do they stay the same?

PS: How do you like them apples cherries!