Comment about free speech and campaign financing

Let me try to be clearer. Money to support candidates for election to the legislative and executive branches has become less restrictive due to the two Supreme Court decisions on free speech and campaign financing, especially with respect to corporate funding. Corporations have interest in getting candidates elected that favor their business. Corporations and people with a lot of money provide funds for the candidates and to PACs to support their candidates. The result is that those with money can drive who gets elected, possibly with some quid pro quo expectation. Money (corporations, PACs, wealthy) can say whatever it wants, true or not. That makes the side with less money spend its more limited resources defending, rebutting, correcting and less able to express its case to the voters. The purpose of campaign finance controls is to allow a fair exchange of ideas and positions on issues for voters to decide with. That is an ideal state that I have no expectation of ever achieving. To think that corporations have any right to back a candidate or provide campaign financing for a candidate is in my mind wrong. Government representation is for the people, not corporations. A corporation is not a person, does not act like a person, does not have interests like a person. I don’t think corporations should have any direct influence in the election of government representatives. They have plenty of indirect influence. People with money don’t deserve any more say in who gets elected than from anyone else. Basic nature of a democracy. Examples of issues are socialized medicine and climate change. One is a political/social choice the people should make for themselves. The other is a scientifically determined fact the people need to choose to respond to. Both through their elected representatives. The problem is when the few (wealthy and corporations) use their money steer the choices of representatives and ultimately the choices for the issues to their benefit by overwhelming opposition with lies, misinformation, and distortion. That does happen. The people are not getting clear debate to choose with. They may choose against their best interests (like a plumber voting for a small government tax cutter who eventually cost him his business) or don’t vote because they are confused or ambivalent due to the fighting. What I desire is a level debating field where positions can be laid out clearly for people to make educated decisions. There can be noise all around the field and being a free speech advocate I support that, but within the political campaign debate, it has to be limited so that all sides (liberals, conservatives, greens, libertarians, etc…) can get their points across. That means limiting money and who can donate. I think it also means who can speak within the campaigns. I think there have to be rules of evidence as well. Within the campaign sphere. Right now, there is no such thing. I suspect voting would be more prevalent with the ability of people to go straight to the candidates’ positions without the flak and noise and lies and misinformation the free-for-all we have today gives. That is not government control of any message, that is control of the election process to allow the people to make informed voting decisions.

Twilight of an Empire

From Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/24/1211496/-Twilight-of-an-Empire-More-than-Just-Bridges-are-Crumbling-in-America#

Iconic of the state of American civilization in general? "Too expensive... let it rot." "Too difficult to have a functioning government... let it do nothing." Infrastructure and institutions of a once proud nation, dwindling away into embarrassment and farce. Our leaders no longer care about providing the American people with even basic public goods that can be relied upon. So we -- supposedly the greatest country in the world -- let roads and bridges in major American cities collapse.

It used to be that America put men on the moon.

We have become a society deeply in decline. And for anyone who is proud to be an American, it is sickening to watch it unfold.

The only question that remains is this: Will the American people rise up, with renewed pride in what their country once was and could be again, and demand better of its leaders?

Intellectual Collapse of Islam... and US?

From 800 to 1100 AD, the Arabic world was the center of knowledge in the world.  Mathmatics as we know it today was developed, the stars were named as navigation and astronomy were refined.  We’d be speaking Arabic today but for one thing.  Around 1100 AD, a Muslim scholar, Hamid Al-Ghazali, declared that mathematics was the work of the devil.  That was the beginning of the end of the 300 year Arabic renaissance and intellectual domination.  Today, out of the billions of Muslims on the planet, only two are Nobel prize winners.  Out of only 15 million Jews, one quarter of the prizes have been given to Jews.  Significant scientific discovery by the Muslim world ended in 1100.   Is the US headed in the same direction?  The religious right and social conservatives seem to be trying to drag us into the dark ages.

http://youtu.be/Fl1nJC3lvFs

Facebook rant:

The 2014 Obama NASA budget proposal. Essentially unchanged from 2012 and 2013. It should be doubled. Where is this out of control spending I keep hearing blather about? IT SHOULD BE DOUBLED! This country is going down the tubes, heading the same way the Arab world went in 1100AD, the moral religious right got it in their heads that math was the devils work and now the Arab greatest accomplishments (algebra, math, astronomy, navigation) are from 900 years ago and they are still beheading and stoning people. Without investment, research, and exploration, we will follow the Arab world. Fuck the Tea Party.