News Stories Which Highlight the Structure of the System

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You seem to be implying that they have not yet been successful.

Functionally speaking, they're about 90% of the way there, but until they derail the ballot initiative system, they aren't all the way there.

Speaking of which, every single human being who is capable of voting in the US really needs to vote on the Constitutional amendment that will overturn Citizens United vs. the FEC: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/02/358694/senators-introduce-citizens-united-amendment/

and get behind the Fair Elections Now Act: http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Incorrect!

Slaves don't have to dance for a parole board pretending to be penitent over that roach the cops found in the ashtray. Nor do they labour under the delusion of eventual release.

You are much more likely to experience happiness in slavery. I say happiness, I mean Stockholm syndrome.

Who the hell are you? You seem pretty OK.

[Junkenstein]

I'll take that as high praise.

I'll spare you a lengthy biography and leave it as "Someone who is smart enough to know he's fucking stupid and should shut up more"

[Don Coyote]

I'll take that as high praise.

I'll spare you a lengthy biography and leave it as "Someone who is smart enough to know he's fucking stupid and should shut up more"

Eh, I believe that it is important to say things, even if they might be wrong, so long as you don't dig your heels in and screech like a monkey when challenged.

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

Incorrect!

Slaves don't have to dance for a parole board pretending to be penitent over that roach the cops found in the ashtray. Nor do they labour under the delusion of eventual release.

You are much more likely to experience happiness in slavery. I say happiness, I mean Stockholm syndrome.

Definitionally speaking I don't see much of a difference. At the point where for-profit prisons garnish wages to the point where they are making between 8 cents to a couple dollars an hour is basically slave labour.
I'm also not sure in what sense you mean it but the way you describe slavery it sounds almost as if you are trying to make it sounds like it is not so bad. Slavery is slavery no matter how long it lasts. But I digress.

And I agree with you there Nigel. Democracy doesn't really work if a fewmillion dollars and a smile an easily defeat any notion of choice.

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

Oh and to connect two things together. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf
It's a report on private prisons and their political strategies to help keep prisons and their pockets nice and full. I haven't finished reading it but it seems fine so far.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

An oldie but a goodie: http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

That's pretty interesting. I had heard about that law but hadn't heard any connections to private prisons. The only arguments I ever really heard about it at the time were the racial profiling ones. Thanks for the share.

[Telarus]

Great discussion so far. I was as shocked at the 90% quota as you all were, but chose not to highlight that when I re-posted. Nice to see others just as disgusted.

Let's change the tone a little:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166311/republican-hearing-contraception-no-women-allowed

Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed

http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/user/194882/BChearing.png [Edited in a graphic a friend posted on FB]

The panel for this morning's House Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on birth control access.

This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing titled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” The topic, as you might guess, is the recent administration decision to mandate birth control coverage.

As you might not guess, the first panel of witnesses doesn’t include a single woman. The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as “not qualified.”

When the hearing began this morning, the Democratic women on the committee walked out. Representative Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat, put out a statement blasting Issa:

It is inconceivable to me that you believe tomorrow’s hearing has no bearing on the reproductive rights of women. This Committee commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across this country are meaningless, worthless, or irrelevant to this debate. […]

Even if you fundamentally disagree with Ms. Fluke’s viewpoint on this matter, you should not be afraid to hear it. A hearing stacked with last-minute witnesses who offer no competing views only contributes to the perception that our Committee is fostering a circus-like atmosphere intended to further politicize this debate.
----------
Some updated details at the link.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Let's not forget the push for voter ID laws: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/voter_id_laws.html

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

It really doesn't make much sense at all. Only a woman could possibly understand the true implications and a panel made up mostly of virgins sure as hell doesn't know what it feels like to be a woman or to need contraception. This only goes to perpetuate theories of patriarchal rule in western culture, which I usually find myself agreeing with.

As for the voter ID laws, I really am surprised so many cannot make the connection from the law to its implications on democracy. Especially since the affects of stricter voting requirements are much more direct than ,for example, corporate money to politicians during campaigns.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Especially when voter fraud has been shown to be a problem so incredibly minimal that, statistically speaking, it's negligible. While, on the other hand, corporate influence is a well-documented problem with an enormous impact on the democratic system... enough so that the populace is pretty united about it despite other political differences.

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

It really makes me wonder what we could do to force them to enact change. How far will regular legal channels allow us to go? The public being incredible disapproving doesn't seem to do anything, only highlighting where their true interests lie. Secondly, if we did end up forcing them to enact change, it seems unlikely that corporations will just fall to the wayside. The might very well just find other loopholes and ways to game the system, such that reforms just can't keep up.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

While that which is legal is constructed in part as a defense against potential threats to the system as it exists, that which is illegal is also constructed that way. Glitter-bomb and you'll be ignored; shoe-bomb and you're pigeonholed as a terrorist (then ignored). The only effective shortcut is one that nobody thought about when making the rules, and it can only possibly work once.

[LMNO]

Interesting side note about the decreasing effectiveness of glitter bombing: The last several times a politician has been glitter bombed, the media referred to it as a "prank", and didn't bother to explain what a glitter bomb is supposed to mean.  The act has been compartamentalized, and can safely be ignored.