"Militancy is necessary for real reform."

Dr. King, Gandhi, and I disagree with you on that point. Especially that part about civil rights not coming about until militant black people started arming themselves. Lasting reform happens through nonviolent means.

So, we've moved from demonizing the rich to demonizing the incredibly rich? Same tactic just shifting to an easier target?

Other things to do now. Have fun empowering the proletariat.

Bullshit. And from a crapped out bull at that. Dr. King himself acknowledged that without Malcolm X scaring the fuck out of white America, he never would have accomplished anything.

Tell you what, I'll give your agitprop a try if you give Griftocracy a crack. You make out better out of this deal, because Taibbi is a more interesting writer than Stanley.

Have fun working to neuter them.

You mean Griftopia? I can't wait to read about those vampire squids ;-)

agitprop, btw is agitation and propaganda. It's funny that you think a work that is basically the findings of a college professor's surveys to be agitation for anything. People use the term propaganda ofte to mean any argument ith which they disagree, but really it's well referenced.

With Titles like

The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire

I can only imagine the bias that I'll be encountering :-)

Why does this guy think he needs to scare people into believeing his schtick?

I'll give it a look nonetheless though. Maybe after reading Stanley you'll see that things aren't nearly as bad as all that.

I see why the 'democratic process 'is put on a moral pedestal over and above people's lives and health. Only 50% of the public turns out to vote on any given election anyway. It is not this great moral Excalibur that people pretend it is. And it's always humorous when the defenders of Capital and Big Pharma cry crocodile tears about the 'democratic process', because we all know they've always been on the side of democracy...

" The more conservative people who just voted in large numbers in the USA are not altogether convinced about completely socialized medicine, that's all."

Except the Healthcare Reform bill wasn't anything close to being 'socialized medicine'. You're the one for precision, not demonization, so why use the word 'socialism' when it isn't accurate? After if you look at the actual polling data, people voice overwhelming support to the bill when asked about its parts, and 50/50 support when just asked whether they support the reform bill in general. People just don't know what it does, and that'll be clear soon enough. To pretend that this election was some kind of referendum on "socialized medicine being rammed down people's throats" is completely misleading and incorrect.

"I certaily hope for the best for your wife, but we know nothing of her chronic condition nor do we know why the insurance company has refused the test. Even so, the insurance company refusing it doesn't mena that the doctors won't perform it. If you think that she needs the test, shop around."

They won't cover it because they believe the diagnostic procedure is "experimental" (a pill endoscopy). Although doctors insist it is the only way to verify what the ailment is.

Since the issue is with the intestinal/digestive, there aren't dozens of gastroentologists to go "shopping around" with. Doctors don't even accept Medicaid patients most of the time, what makes you think they will do tests and accept payment later?

I don't know who your doctor is, but the average around here is not $35. It's more like $150. And how about gyno visits for women? These costs add up.

And this alleged "so-so" healthcare of the socialized medicine countries who beat out the US year in and year out has not been proved. The healthcare people who even have insurance can afford is sub-par here. Let alone people who have nothing.

*Bah - gastroenTERologist, and I meant to say "I don't see why the 'democratic process 'is put on a moral pedestal over and above people's lives and health."

"Dr. King himself acknowledged that without Malcolm X scaring the fuck out of white America, he never would have accomplished anything."

link please because that sounds nothing like the Dr. King that I've heard of. He had no enmity with Malcolm X but that kind of acknowledgement seems unlikely.

I found this telegram expressing his condolences to Betty Shabazz on Malcolm's assassination. It hardly fits the bill.

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/telegram_from_martin_luther_king_jr_to_betty_al_shabazz/

Not sure exactly where I read it, as it was a while ago, but I am fairly certain this is not something I invented. Of course, Dr. King's whole consistent line of argument about how if the movement could not achieve its goals nonviolently, then violence would be the most likely result is something of an endorsement of the utility of a symbol of the potential for race-based violence within the black community to give whitey something to think about.

mcbry: "There is no "democratic process", just a steady barrage of spin, propaganda and distraction tactics and an unchecked corporate influence. Stop corporate campaign funding and lobbying, prosecute the libellous content of certain media outlets (the libellous ones, duh!) and break up the monopolies, revoke the tax-exemption status of any church or other supposedly non-profit organization that is used to advocate candidates, and then we'll be starting back down the road toward being able to talk about a democratic process and it's hypothetical suspension.

The reform of the healthcare system is not about stakeholders. The profit margins of those interests are not an admissible concern in the process."

+1
As long as corporations have a say in the political process, the actions of the government will never be what is best for the people of the country.

@Crazy Anglican: "The more conservative people who just voted in large numbers in the USA are not altogether convinced about completely socialized medicine, that's all. Why not sit down and come up with a compromise rather than trying to force sociialized medicine down our throats becasue you think it would be better for you."

There were many attempts at compromise by Obama and the democrats. Republicans had no interest in compromise.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/22/obama.health.care/index.html

FUCK USSR

About Churches, I'm from Canada, so it is a little different here. Churches are not allowed to participate in partisan politics. However Unions are. Why is that? A Church is a voluntary association (you don't have to belong) while in some industries (including the Public Service) you need to be a part of the Union to work. Why is there a difference here.

Either get Unions out of the political process (my preferred choice) or allow everyone to participate (Charities and Churches)

Joey

People say that churches in the US aren't allowed to participate in partisan politics. That's false.

What's true is that churches get massive tax exemptions from the government. One of the conditions of their tax exemption is that they stay out of partisan politics.

The hypocrisy of the people who complain about churches being muzzled is staggering. Any church who feels obliged to broadcast a partisan message can do so at any time, just by paying taxes.

What about Unions. In Canada unions also get the exact same tax exemptions. Yet they participate in partisan politics. Is that the same in the US? My wife was an Ontario public servant before we got married and when there was an election, she got a several page glossy brochure encouraging her to vote NDP. She (at that time) was a member of the Conservative party, why should she have to pay a portion of her union dues to support the publication of literature that does not represent her political views?

Joey, Unions are an inherently political counterbalance to corporate interests and should have a special consideration separate from non-profits. Churches (imho) are or should be inherently apolitical, and it should be considered a fraud to suggest from the pulpit that God supports one candidate or another. That said, I'd like to see money completely removed from the election process.

What I was told.

I don't think anyone but politicians should have a strong voice in partisan politics. All donations to political parties/candidates should have to be anonymous and should have to be from individuals. Individual citizens should of course also have a say, but every single citizen should have an exactly equal say. Any organization that is exempt from taxes should not be able to campaign for any political party/candidate.

*unless they are willing to pay taxes as per pastoralan of course.*

Well, if unions are inherently political I guess that makes me even more anti-union.

@hir - charities?
How about if one party wants to make something into a taxed institution - could they not oppose this?

I would be okay with an charitable/religious organization making their opinion known about an issue that directly affects their operation. That does not mean they should be allowed to hire lobbyists or send out campaign literature advising people about who to vote for.

The problem with limiting one group or another's voice is that we seldom do it completely in the interest of the system. Take a look at the things we've said in this thread alone. Both sides would like to exclude groups that historically vote against them. So conservatives typically don't like unions and liberals typically don't like corporate management. There should be no legitimate complaint about a group exercising their right to contribute to a campaign if it is counter balanced by another group in opposition to it. If you silence one group but not the other then by definition you're throwing the process out of balance.

I guess I'd be Back in the USSR...oh, those Moscow girls really scream and shout...

They still scream and shout. They're just not back in the USSR anymore.