@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

There are serious problems with Sommers video. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, watch it here.

Basically, her argument is "I looked at some literature (I'm not going to tell you what though) and I concluded there is no misogyny in gaming. You can trust me because I call myself a Feminist."

That's called "appeal to authority" and it's a logical fallacy.

The hugely ironic thing is that anti-Sarkeesian people are constantly going on about Sarkeesian is not qualified to critique games because she only played some of the games she talks about in the videos and watched YouTube game footage of the rest. Yet Sommers admits in the start of this video that she hasn't played video games since Pac Man in the 80s! By anti-Sarkeesian standards, she's even less qualified to talk about games than Sarkeesian is.

But that doesn't stop people who don't like Sarkeesian from trotting out this video as some supposedly magical proof that Sarkeesian's arguments have been debunked.

He supports your voice having more weight regardless the cause, be it the end of the state, following the Constitution, or whatever. Lessig is a lefty but the PAC is designed to give any influential politician, party-be-damned, incentive to fight the influence of money in politics.

When only money is heard in Washington, I'll take any hope I can get. If I'm too partisan to rally behind the cause of my own voice, there really is no reason for politicians to listen.

Congratulations! Your video, Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 5 Badge!

I'm having a real problem putting my thoughts into words. I would feel a union has most of it's member's values presented for the most part. If a union leader really started acting contrary to the rank and file, he'd be voted out.

"Citizens United" -and PACs in general- however, from what I've been able to figure out, is a CEO donating "for his employees", but a CEO working contrary to his employee's wishes is commonplace, dare I say expected? As long as he has the blessing of the Board and Shareholders, his position is fixed.

I would think a union is closer to having its member's welfare in mind than a CEO. I have less a problem with a union (mass of people) controlling a government, than Corporations (a couple dozen people) controlling it.

One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.

You're not wrong. I'm actually glad I live in Nebraska, it's right wing obviously, but it's not total nutbag like the south. The Republicans in Nebraska did lose their shit in 2008 when the Omaha district voted for Obama and they tried to go back to winner take all. But I think cooler heads prevailed as if trends continue, urban populations will outstrip the rural areas and more traditionally red States start turning blue. At least in a split vote system, even if the state goes blue, the right still retains a minority voice instead of no voice. I had been following wolf pac but hearing about this makes me want to be a member now

First, thank you for the explanation and not the typical rant I might get form others on the sift...
I can understand what you're saying. It makes sense. It just seems to me that in certain states, Unions have been able to run the Government for quite some time (to the state's and their members detriment) and now that they have competition they are complaining. But that may not be the case, it just seems that way to me.

Further, we seem to be going off the assumption that PAC's are all conservative or that all Unions are liberal, are there are liberal PACs or conservative unions?

Unions = large groups of people, pooling small amounts of money into large ones.

PACs = tiny groups of people, pooling large amounts of money into huge ones.

Why should 2 or 3 billionaires have a bigger voice than 100,000,000 unionized workers?

...and I don't like unions, but I have to side with them on this.

Can someone explain to me why...
PAC's are bad, bad, evil things supported by companies that use their money to influence politicians to get their way - destroy the environment, screw over employees and in general try to generate as much revenue as possible, but Unions are good groups that exert control over a ton of votes and money that they donate to politicians who in turn award them with generous pensions and benefits that bankrupt the State. So why don't we get Unions out of elections as well as PACs? Look at all the commercials during election seasons that are sponsored by the Teachers Union, Police Union, Firefighters Union, Ditch Diggers Union, on and on and on. Its to the point where the PAC and the Union commercials have become a blur.

Your video, Vermont Becomes The First State To Pass Wolf PAC Resolution, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Really sad we can't get something like this sifted. Some people shoot their mouths off and spend enormous amounts of time, constantly whining about 'the system'. Always find myself wondering what they are prepared to do about it beyond internet rage. Imagine if everyone who did went and signed up to volunteer or started calling their state senators on their own!

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

*promote

Top Games I remember (in no specific order)

Galaga
Defender
Stargate (Defender)
Tac Scan
Tempest
Tron
Pac Man
Missile Command
Dig Dug
Joust
Journey (yes, based after the Band)
Centipede
Pengo
Gauntlet
Lunar Lander

Educating yourselves and your friends/family is great but if you want to actually do something about it: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Volunteer or start contacting your state representatives on your own. Might be the only chance we have.

Oh god I've been mispronouncing Pac Man all these years.