Washington State Bridge Collapse Another Reminder Of Need For Massive Infrastructure Investment Without Interference Of Politics!

News that the Interstate 5 Bridge north of Seattle, Washington, collapsed last night, causing two vehicles to plunge in the water and cause three injuries, is a reminder of the crisis we face in this nation, regarding the urgent need for massive infrastructure investment, with an aging public works system all over the country, and with the reminder of the much more disastrous bridge collapse in Minnesota on Interstate 95 in 2007, which caused the death of 13 people and the injury of 145 others.

Instead of constant politics, and claims we cannot afford such investment in infrastructure, this is another warning of the potential for much greater disasters because of short sightedness on the part of Congressional leaders, who refuse to face the facts that it is the job of the federal government to provide necessary funding for such projects, and if that means higher taxes, so be it!

72 comments on “Washington State Bridge Collapse Another Reminder Of Need For Massive Infrastructure Investment Without Interference Of Politics!

  1. Maggie May 24, 2013 7:47 pm

    Further evidence Conservatives are hellbent on destruction of our country.
    ———————————————————————————–

    Republicans are hellbent and will stop at nothing to destroy this country in every way possible. They DON ‘T wish to conserve anything, they want to destroy this country in order to create the kind of fascist nation they feel will benefit only them!
    There most recent scheme:
    House Republicans Pass Unconstitutional Bill Hijacking Obama’s Power Over Keystone XL
    ———————————-http://www.politicususa.com/house-republicans-unconstitutional-action-hijack-obamas-power-keystone-xl.html
    ———————————-_
    As America continues making the transition from a representative democracy to a corporate-controlled fascist state, it is becoming more difficult to have any faith that the minority party in power has any regard whatsoever for this nation or its people, but that is to be expected from Republicans whose raison d’être is empowering corporations. There are few areas of government and policy Republicans have not ceded to their corporate handlers, but none is as blatant and damaging as allowing the corporate oil industry to dictate energy and environmental policy that is having acutely deleterious effects on the people and health of the environment. Part of the problem is a corporate-controlled press that advances the oil industry agenda without opposition, and part is allowing oil industry sycophants to serve in Congress that emboldened them to stage a coup d’état to seize power from the President and warn him to toe the oil industry line or else. A major share of the blame lies solely with the Founding Fathers and their pathetic Constitution that has failed miserably to protect the people from corporate oligarchs even when they are from a foreign nation.
    Two events over the past two days inform that Republicans are employed by a foreign nation’s prime minister and one of its corporations that promises to enrich the GOP’s primary campaign donors’ bottom line regardless the existential threat to the environment and the health and welfare of the American people. On Wednesday, House Republicans took the unprecedented, but not wholly unexpected, step to wrest power from the President of the United States by passing a bill that circumvents the President’s executive power and approved the environment-killing Keystone XL pipeline at the direct order of a foreign corporation and Canada’s prime minister. The Harper government has exerted its formidable power over Republicans to subvert the Constitution to advance a Canadian corporation’s intent to pump 830,000 barrels per day of tar sand bitumen to American refineries en route to South America, China, and Europe.
    Following the Republican practice of blatant lying to enrich and empower corporate control of energy policy, TransCanada spokesman, Shawn Howard, said, “We appreciate the continued support from many members of Congress, who understand the importance of Keystone XL to the American economy,” and that “Keystone XL will be the safest oil pipeline, and it will help make America less reliant on more expensive oil from countries that do not share its interests and values.” TransCanada has reported that the KeystoneXL pipeline will regularly spill tar sand bitumen on American soil, as well as touted contracts already in place to sell every drop of refined tar sand on the foreign export market. Americans will never see or use any of the refined tar, but they will pay more for gas as TransCanada predicted the pipeline will increase the price of fuel at the pump by at least 20-cents per gallon. In fact, the pipeline is so hazardous to the environment that the Canadian government will not allow TransCanada to build the pipeline over Canadian soil to West coast refineries, so they charged Republicans to ignore the Constitution and pass a bill to approve the pipeline’s construction regardless it is the purview of the President of the United States.
    Yesterday, a group of Senate Republicans sent a stern warning to President Obama to approve the pipeline forthwith, and forbade him from including any measures to address climate change the pipeline is certain to exacerbate on a massive scale. Two dozen Senate Republicans cautioned the President that he had better not link one single climate change policy to approval of the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, and that he dare not “tether its fate to wholly unrelated and economically disastrous new regulatory policies.” Every climate scientist on the planet has warned that developing Canada’s tar sands will increase CO2 emissions to a point it will be “game over for the climate” in spite of the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil report to the State Department that building the pipeline is an environmentally sound endeavor with “manageable” consequences to the environment. Two weeks ago, carbon dioxide (CO2) reached the 400ppm milestone for the first time in at least 800,000 years according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and climate scientists agree the evidence is conclusive the strong growth of CO2 emissions is from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. 400 ppm is 50 ppm over the threshold scientists claim demands immediate steps to curb fossil fuel emissions or it is game over for the climate; Republicans and their corporate masters could not care less.
    The real issue is not just the devastation inherent in pumping tar bitumen through the pipeline, or that the climate is going to be decimated to expand Canada’s tar industry, but that Republicans have no regard for anything but corporate interests; even a corporation’s interests. It is true they successfully put the oil industry in charge of energy policy, but they have also given corporations power to dictate policy on every issue affecting the American people and there is little anyone can, or will, do to stop the corporate takeover. The media is wholly owned and operated by corporations pushing agendas hostile to democracy and the American people, and Republicans dutifully enact laws written by corporations through the American Legislative Exchange Council. The recent Senate vote on background checks prior to gun purchases is the perfect example of Republicans giving corporate interests power to subvert the will of 91% of the population to maintain their profits, and it was a portent of democracy’s end and corporate control of government.
    The Founding Fathers could have prevented America’s spiral into corporate fascism, but they likely never imagined Americans would sit idly by and allow their elected representatives to cede the government to corporations. Perhaps the Constitution’s framers believed a free press would inform the people of the impending corporate coup d’état, but corporations own the media and successfully concealed democracy’s demise. It is prescient that the media has never informed the people that Keystone is dangerous and will not provide any oil for Americans, and they will be as guilty as Republicans and the oil industry for climate Armageddon as well as America’s continued slide into corporate oligarchy. It is apropos the corporate oil industry and Republicans will be the undoing of the climate, because long before they despoil the climate and environment that will make Earth uninhabitable, their effort to destroy American democracy will have reached fruition.

  2. Juan Domingo Peron May 24, 2013 7:57 pm

    Maggie: What are you on? Please share , don’t be so selfish. Conservatism/classic liberals=limited constitutional Republic. So the admirers of Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Burke, Locke, are looking to create a fascist nation. Seriously, what are you on? LSD?

  3. Princess Leia May 24, 2013 10:26 pm

    Thanks for the info Maggie. People need to wake up and vote those jerks out in 2014!

  4. Maggie May 24, 2013 10:29 pm

    Thanks Princess!!

    As usual Juan Your comment is patronizing and misogynistic.
    You obviously don ‘t understand fascism..
    The heart of Neo-Conservatism is Fascism, though I’m not sure Neo-Cons, Conservatives or Republicans are aware of this. They have been fooled because they are morons and that includes you Juan!
    ———————————–
    Fascism and Neoconservative Republicans
    March 25th, 2010 · 1 Comment · Culture, Media, Politics, wars and militarism
    ————————————-
    The word “Fascist” as with the terms “Socialist” and “Communist” are thrown around a lot by people who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department, Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.
    In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government. You can’t spot a Communist if you don’t know what a Communist is. You can’t tell the difference between a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence, and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.
    So, let’s go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.
    Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term “Fascist” has taken on a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don’t kill people; people kill people.
    It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.
    Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary political activities.
    As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and demonstrations and—in Mussolini’s case an outright coup—they allied themselves with the biggest corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda.
    Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information, they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler’s “Big Lie” basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. (The current neo -con blame immigrants and the poor) He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.)
    But let’s for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial complex.
    They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. (Fox News)
    They would become as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware and strategic planning.
    And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done. If you want to build an “autobahn” you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things done.
    Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost.
    In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total—totalitarian. So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote against it in a totally militaristic way. (Senate and House Republicans). Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader. (Look at the Republicans vying for this role- Cantor, Cruz, Ryan,
    In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let’s say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision— with no question or appeal.
    So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of 10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.) They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information they want, truth, lies, anything in between… accusations without proof, conspiracy theories, Socialist, Communist, government takeover of this or that…no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda and the way Republicans now operate.
    Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s—and except in the Communist counties and a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn’t been anything to speak of similar to this in the Western advanced societies since then—the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion, and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.
    So do we need to be civil about it—about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not, so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests…do you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn’t be lied to by media. You need the truth, the facts, to make decisions. Republicans do not agree with informing or educating their base with verifiable facts.
    It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you are attacked by sharks that I knew were there…should you not care? This is what is happening, right now…today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable. Republicans want to abolish all consumer protections.
    So let’s describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:
    Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.
    Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.
    Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.
    Uses mobs (armed NRA members) and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid of violent reactions.
    Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre…”the people with the guns make the rules.”)
    Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.
    Uses “big lie” propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.
    Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.
    Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.
    If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something “Fascist” in the current political process. Of course, one thing that wasn’t mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize. In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems clear that, in this country it is the Democrats, Immigrants, Latinos, Muslims, Gays, African Americans, the poor…,
    The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech…yet we tolerate it.
    We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator…to be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace Prize.
    The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies about conspiracies, demonization of the above mentioned population plus workers, unions, the unemployed, etc. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office or the Threats by gun owners to fight the current government to the death.
    This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop! The first step in preventing this kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political party.
    http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/neoconservative-republicans-and-fascism.html
    The last person Repubs want in the White House is another government-expanding “compassionate conservative” like Bush the younger and especially NOT a black man!
    They yearn for a radical who will yank an out-of-control federal government up by its roots, or at least starve it of revenue, prune entitlements, chop away job-strangling regulation like consumer protection or environmental protection and free (or force) citizens to take more individual responsibility for their pensions and health care. Those that can’t, screw them!
    I think the Republican Party is not really a party. It doesn’t stand for anything except reelecting itself. It’s a coalition of gangs….
    The Neo Cons are only oriented to an aggressive imperialistic foreign policy, a big defense establishment, and suppression of our civil liberties like voting!
    The one positive I can observe about the Republican party is that they are starting to eat their own. If we are lucky they will consume themselves and explode into a bloody mist.

  5. Engineer Of Knowledge May 25, 2013 8:06 am

    Hello Maggie,
    I him home on the farm on the Delmarva Peninsula. It’s never been more beautiful.

    Hello Juan,
    Very good and yes the answer is “1”. I’m glad you finally googled it. Now I would ask you to look up the carbon identifier in the current CO2 as I would like to have a good discussion with regards to this. I look forward to your findings. Sincerely..

  6. Juan Domingo Peron May 25, 2013 10:54 am

    For CO2 the CAS number is 124-38-9 and the European commission (EC) number is 204-696-9. For C the CAS number is 7440-44-0 and the European commission (EC) number is 231-153-3. Which one are you referring to? I am not a chemist. My wife is, actually she is a bio-chemist and researcher at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. But that’s her not me. So now could you answer my simple layman’s questions regarding the cost/benefit analysis?

  7. Juan Domingo Peron May 25, 2013 2:28 pm

    Maggie: Corporatism, socialism, progressivism are all in the end “Statist”. And as a conservative/classic liberal we oppose statism in whatever form it comes packaged in. Now having made that abundantly clear many times, I do not reject the fact that within the GOP there are Statist, which is corporatist. But who are they? They are the Establishment Republicans of the Bush wing of the Party, the Roves, McCain’s, Graham’s and the rest.
    Corporatism has the appearance of capitalism because ownership of the means of production is kept within the private sector. This is the main difference with socialism. But on the other hand, like socialism, the government guarantees the flow of material goods. This is not so under classic free market capitalism.
    In a “night watchman state” under classical capitalism, which is the result of conservative/classic liberal political philosophy, the government’s role is simply to prevent fraud and the use of force that would disrupt the autonomous operation of the free market. Government regulates the market to prevent fraud, abuse and destructive monopolies. After that, the market is trusted to provide the flow of goods. When government takes over more or less that role, we have what is currently happening in Venezuela, where they have literally run out of toilette paper and only have a week’s supply left in the whole country! Of course the Venezuelan government blames the rich for the lack of toilette paper believe it or not. So under corporatism, which I repeat is just another form of statism, the market is not trusted, but it is systematically being manipulated to deliver goods to political constituency, which includes everyone from the economic elites to the ordinary consumer.
    Corporatist understood that the direct government ownership of the means of productions did not work; this is the difference with classic socialism. Corporatism mixes socialism and capitalism not by giving each control of different parts of the economy, but by combining socialism’s promise of a government-guaranteed flow of material goods with capitalism’s private ownership and management. This is what is called a mixed-economy, and the Western Europeans tried it until the rise of Thatcherism. And they returned to that practice after the fall of Thatcher. The EU is a prime example of corporatism.
    The statist left and right are attracted to corporatism and it’s also appealing to both the general electorate but also to the economic well-off. Large corporations like corporatism, until the politicians managing the government get greedy. And pro-corporatism politicians like large corporations because they are easier to manage. Imposing affirmative action, racial sensibility and go green policies is easier to do on Apple, Jarden Inc, or GM than it 100,000 small family owned businesses. Just take a look at the internal life of any big corporation and you will see that it is an important if not key enforcer of the political correctness policies created by the Washington establishment. Furthermore large corporations love corporatism because, unlike small limited government, under corporatism the government is large enough to socialize cost in exchange for a share of the profits.
    At the beginning of the 20th century, during the Progressive Era, the people were convinced by progressive politicians of both parties, that the classical night-watchman state was too weak to make large corporations play fair within the market. This meant that the idea that the free market could be trusted to self-regulate itself was effectively destroyed. The creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 cemented that idea. Ironically the bad policies and errors of the Federal Reserve led to the crash of 1929 and more interventionism created and turned a recession into the Great Depression. The second trust that the people had, that the free market economy is the best system to produce and deliver material goods without government intervention, collapsed under the weight of the policies imposed by the New Deal. The people came to accept and believe the idea that government can and must deliver material goods.
    So when these two fundamental trusts that the people had on the free market, collapsed, corporatism became a necessity, irrespective of whether the government delivered what it had promised. The people now by instinct turned to the government as their protector.
    To be able to ever put under control the expansion of big government, (never mind get rid of), thus protecting liberty , the trust that the free market can regulate for the most part itself better than with hyper government interventions and regulations, and the trust that the free market can reliably deliver material goods, has to be restored somehow. But that is a difficult task because even under Republican administrations, as with the Bush’s, the establishment Republicans together with the Democratic Party, government has continued to grow.
    When people demand that the government “do something” about a falling stock market, they are playing at capitalism while practicing corporatism, whether they know it or not.
    The essential morality behind corporatism can be summed up in two questions. What do the people have the right to be done for them? And what does the government have the responsibility to do? It is empirically demonstrable by just observing the policies of both the statist left and right, that they both like corporatism. The statist right because it allows them to realize capitalist profits while unloading some of the costs and risks onto the state. (See bailouts, the unrelenting flow of low cost labor via illegal immigration, etc.). Also because government is too big it allows big business to shape government policy to their advantage and in detriment of medium and small business. (Only big business can deal with the excessive cost of “ridiculous and unnecessary red tape, like Obamacare). The left (and free market limited government conservatives also) correctly criticizes this as corporate welfare, or as “socializing the losses, privatizing the profits”. But what the left doesn’t understand and conservatives do, is that a society which grants the fundamental premise that government should take care of everybody, government eventually will, and big business is part of “everybody.”
    The left also likes corporatism because it satisfies their lust for power via control of as much as possible of the economic and social variables. (See Obamacare, which is essentially about control). The mindset behind this idea of control is that “men generally behave well, but if they are controlled they behave better”. Thus we are told or “suggested” what to buy, eat, say and eventually think. Here the tyranny of political correctness takes over and stifles freedom of ideas and debate which follows the playbook of the left. Anyone who dares not have the same ideas or belief system of the left is automatically attacked and disqualified, because only they, the left, care for the people, whether people are divided by race , gender, or wealth. Corporatism also allows politicians from the left to attempt to “redistribute” income while remaining affluent themselves, and at the same time cementing their control and power via a “captive” electorate.
    Thus all this debate and arguments between “left” and “right’ is really taking place within the framework of the corporate consensus which is supported by the two sides but for different reasons. And the irony is that no-one is willing to admit it. But whenever this consensus is in danger the “two” sides get together and attack the source of that danger. As we have seen when the establishment Republicans Statist together with the Democrats attacked, Reagan in his time, and Reagan Conservatives today. Senator McCain is good at that today, as well as the IRS.
    Both the Statist Right and Statist Left like corporatism in practice and are very cozy with it, even though the establishment statist right mumbles against big government and the establishment statist intellectual left mumbles its anti-corporation rhetoric.
    We should understand that there are in reality three different models in which to organize the economy: socialism, corporatism, and capitalism. So the question really is if the option is about socialism vs. capitalism, socialism vs. corporatism or is it really about corporatism vs. capitalism? For us conservatives of course, we prefer capitalism to corporatism which in turn is preferable to socialism. But the statist right of prefers corporatism to capitalism (as does the statist left since socialism is not possible at this stage in the U.S.). Finally, I also know that as conservatives/classic liberals we must not be confused into supporting and defending corporatism believing that it is capitalism.
    I suggest you read some Robert Nozick books, like State,Anarchy and Utopia or Philosophical Explanations.

  8. Princess Leia May 25, 2013 6:54 pm

    Lulz @ the Guano Droppings today!

  9. Msggie May 25, 2013 7:57 pm

    Great article Princess!
    Too bad it’s beyond Juan’s reading level LOL!

  10. Princess Leia May 25, 2013 8:57 pm

    Yep. Totally agree Maggie!

  11. Princess Leia May 25, 2013 10:06 pm

    Haha! The movie that intrigues me the most this summer is Elysium.

    Here’s the plot:
    In the year 2154, two classes of people exist: the very wealthy, who live on a pristine man-made space station called Elysium, and the rest, who live on an overpopulated, ruined Earth. The people of Earth are desperate to escape the planet’s crime and poverty, and they critically need the state-of-the-art medical care available on Elysium – but some in Elysium will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve their citizens’ luxurious lifestyle. The only man with the chance to bring equality to these worlds is Max (Matt Damon), an ordinary guy in desperate need to get to Elysium. With his life hanging in the balance, he reluctantly takes on a dangerous mission – one that pits him against Elysium’s Secretary Delacourt (Jodie Foster) and her hard-line forces – but if he succeeds, he could save not only his own life, but millions of people on Earth as well.

  12. Juan Domingo Peron May 25, 2013 10:47 pm

    Elysium: Typical liberal leftist Hollywood movie plot to advance the progressive narrative and most importantly plant the progressive world view within young minds. Nothing new here.

  13. Engineer Of Knowledge May 25, 2013 11:02 pm

    Juan play nice now with Princess Leia, 🙂

    OK I understand and I’m glad we are talking like this now. Sorry for getting back to you so slowly but I’m very busy with my visit home before I fly back to Columbus, OH where I am consulting engineering.

    C14 is the organic origins of the carbon in the CO2 we are talking about today. C12 is the inorganic origin carbon like what a volcano eruption would put forth. C13 is the radioactive decay of the C14 and what is used when carbon dating the age of what had once been organic in origins. (All life here on earth is a carbon based life form and that carbon is C14)

    When we burn any hydrocarbon based fuels (gas, oil, coal, wood, natural gas, etc.) the hydrogen is what is consumed leaving the carbon to be emitted. This carbon of course has the C14 identifier.

    The climatologist that the Koch Brothers hired, (and along with the vast majority of others in this science) evaluations were that yes there is Global Warming / Climate Change and yes it is being caused by man due to the C14 identification in the CO2 being evaluated in the upper atmosphere. (Yes plants and trees absorbed CO2 and emit oxygen “O2” but unfortunately we don’t have trees 3 miles tall to scrub it from the air.) Also we are producing more CO2 than what is being naturally abosrbed by these means.

    Millions of years ago, before the dinosaurs even came into existence, there was a mass extinction of life on earth due to an over concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This carbon had the C12 volcanic origins.

    The high chance scenario of this possibly happening again in the future is what we are concerned about today as it will be due to our own doing but from C14 carbon.

    I also really need to go into this deeper with how Carbon Monoxide “CO” (what you get when you burn any Hydrocarbon fuel) becomes Carbon Dioxide “CO2”, but I am out of time now. (This also includes what is happening to the “O3” Ozone)

  14. Ronald May 26, 2013 1:27 am

    Juan, you seem unconcerned about the context of ELYSIUM, and the idea that such a situation could develop IF nothing is done to overcome the dramatic centralization of wealth in the hands of two percent of the population, and not just in America, but worldwide. If nothing is done to overcome this horrible situation in the future, then armed revolution will be the alternative, not a good idea, if only there can be understanding that the top two percent will lose everything they have if they do not show concern about the rest of the population. Do you advocate selfishness and greed as a good human trait that should be promoted? Is this what you teach your son? I certainly hope not! 🙁

  15. Engineer Of Knowledge May 26, 2013 10:59 am

    Good morning Professor. We have many examples of the masses who finally drew weary of being oppressed and eventually revolted in violent overthrow. All did not bode well for the elite privilaged during this time….The French Revolution and the Russian Revolution are just some examples in history. For those whom are of enough hubrus to think it would not happen here in the U.S. will not suffer well should or when it does. History does repeat itself.

  16. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 11:38 am

    Masses oppressed here in the US? Good grief! First masses is a third world Marxist term. We in the US are individual citizens, not masses. Second, Oppression? You guys really, but I mean really haven’t a clue about what oppression is.And I’m not talking about violent physical oppression , I’m talking about future-less economic oppression. You really have no idea, Nada, zero! LOL. So millions and millions try to come to the US to live with its oppressed masses. Talk about being a “spoiled child”, typical liberal.

  17. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 12:04 pm

    Lulz. Masses is NOT just a “third world Marxist term”, Juan. And we DO understand what economic oppression is. We’ve learned about it in world history classes.

  18. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 12:25 pm

    That’s my point , you “learned” “read” about it but haven’t lived it day in and day during your entire life, why not even for a couple of years, thus you haven’t a clue. Your answer is typical liberal talk, who thinks they have an idea, and are more knowledgeable about a certain subject than people who actually have experience, just because they “learned” about it. You haven’t worked in an oppressive economic system, made ends meat, nothing. You don’t know about the small details of everyday life in an economic backward oppressive economic system because you haven’t lived it , thank God. You have as much an idea about this economic oppressive reality as a virgin who only “read” and “learned” about sex, but never had sex in reality.

  19. Maggie May 26, 2013 12:26 pm

    No oppression in the US Juan?
    Your delusions out of control again? Or is it just plain right wing denial of truth… or maybe ignorance?
    ————————————
    http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/oppression-black-people-usa-today
    The oppression of black people in the USA today
    ————————————
    The systematic oppression of black Americans is deeply embedded in the fabric of US society. In a nation made up of immigrants, blacks were the ones brought there forcibly and kept as slaves for 150 years. Although racism afflicts many ethnic groups, racism against black people is “justified” by a racist ideology derived from slavery and the hundred year old apartheid system of Jim Crow, which insists on their inferiority to whites. Though officially hidden today, it underpins the horrific inequality in education, employment, housing, healthcare, and levels of poverty dividing black and white Americans.A 2008 report by the National Urban League (Annual Report on Socio-economic Conditions in Black America), which investigates the realities faced by black citizens, has uncovered some brutal facts. It finds that there is still indisputable evidence that the criminal justice system is pitted against young black men, and systematically criminalises them.
    For example, blacks who are arrested are seven times more likely to be imprisoned than whites; they are sentenced to death four times more often than whites, and the average prison sentence is 10 months longer for black men than for white men. In addition 98 per cent of District Attorneys, those responsible for initiating prosecutions, are white and black jurors are challenged far more than whites.
    Black Americans make up 12.2 per cent of the American population, but black men under 25 years of age are 15 times more likely to die by murder than white men. Black men make up 48 per cent of those on death row. Of the two million people imprisoned in the US, one million are black. Yet blacks are still 20 times more likely than whites to be a victim of hate crime.The US legal system uses systematic racist techniques to convict and sentence blacks. The death penalty is racist. An in-depth study by researchers, ‘Prison Nation: the Warehousing of America’s Poor’, found that whether someone is given the death penalty is down to the quality of legal defence, not the facts of the crime. Most of those on death row could not afford their own lawyer. So the death penalty is also a class issue – there are no rich people on death row.The National Urban League also finds:
    • More than 80,000 Black Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance
    • Black people are less likely to own their own home than any other ethnic group
    • Black women are five to six times more likely to receive sub prime mortgages than white males
    • Blacks people are three times more likely to receive higher rate mortgage loans (54.7 per cent of blacks compared to 17.2 per cent of whites)
    • 25 percent of the black population live below the poverty line, and of those under the ages of 18, 33.5 per cent live in poverty.
    These are just some examples of the horrific inequality black people face in the USA, not to mention the racism that also works on unconscious levels, racism which exists in the workplace, in social relations, and in the education system.
    As the whole world saw in 2006, when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, in the richest country on earth the black and poor inhabitants were left to save themselves or drown. Hungry survivors were shot at when they took food from abandoned shops.
    And two whole years after Katrina, tens of thousands of its victims are still awaiting permanent housing (UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination). New housing projects which were promised by the government simply are not being built. Public housing for low-income families is being demolished to make way for new private housing, and rents on existing homes are being raised.On average Black male fulltime workers earn only 72 per cent of the earnings of their white class brothers. For women, the comparable ratio is 85 percent. In boom and recession alike, black unemployment is double the white rate. In the 40 years since Martin Luther King was assassinated, the income disparity between blacks and whites has narrowed by only three cents in the dollar. In a country with very little public housing, black homeownership is only 47 per cent compared with 75 per cent for whites. In 2005 the median per capita income was $16,629 for blacks and $28,946 for whites. At this rate it would take another 537 years to reach income equality. But if Democrats and Republicans keep on demolishing welfare programmes, this snail’s pace improvement will go into reverse. (All figures from: Race and Extreme Inequality by Dedrick Muhammad in The Nation, June 11, 2008)
    It’s not surprising that Barack Obama declared in March this year that “race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore” and spoke of the racial divide between black and white which he hoped to overcome. But what is he actually promising to do for African-Americans?
    Obama’s manifesto, Blueprint for Change, contains some positive measures such as providing support for ex- offenders including mental health counselling, job training, and re-integration. Non-violent offenders on drugs charges will be sent to rehabilitation centres instead of to prisons. However these measures are really only sticking plasters on the gaping wounds of racism. There is in Obama’s programme nothing like a strategy to lift black people out of poverty, find equally paid jobs for the unemployed and stop police and legal harassment.It will take more than the election of a black president to do this. Indeed the candidate of a capitalist and imperialist party like the Democrats is bound to fail to meet the hopes of African Americans.Socialists want to address this burning question. We must overcome the divisions between white, Latino and black workers and weld them into an organised force, a party which puts to the forefront of its struggle the ending of black oppression and exploitation. In general white Americans of all classes are privileged in relation to black people. Nevertheless white workers, especially the poorer majority, are much less privileged than the middle class. Poor whites are also sidelined and exploited, patronised and abused, which can lead to a clear need for solidarity between poorer black and white workers. Especially in the present period, when the failure of capitalism is being brought home painfully to the great majority of Americans, a revolutionary socialist party can unite the fragmented working class and raise once more the banner of a socialist America, free from poverty, oppression, inequality and racism.

  20. Engineer Of Knowledge May 26, 2013 12:30 pm

    Well Juan i have to point out that the French Revolution did not result in Marxism. Would you perfer the term, “Working Middle Class”? No matter the name, be it the Masses or Working Middle Class right now the rules and regulations are stacked against you.

    The French Revolution did result in the invention of the guillotine. When the next necessity “Mother of Invention”comes about…well I know what side of the guillotine I will be standing on…and what side of the guillontine you will be on…:-)

  21. Engineer Of Knowledge May 26, 2013 12:43 pm

    Juan I should also add that when the “Masses” grew tired if the economic oppression from England, embraced the American Revolution. By employing your thought process logic…this brought about Marxism. Quite a pitfall in your logic wouldn’t you say?

  22. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 12:43 pm

    Great post Maggie! I would say it’s all of the above – ignorance, denial, delusions out of control.

  23. Maggie May 26, 2013 12:45 pm

    This was too good not too post!
    ———————————–
    What could be more American than firing up the grill on Memorial Day, loading up on sparklers for the Fourth of July?
    We’ll celebrate by filling our gobs with coleslaw and giving some snappy lip service about our founding fathers and servicemen, then nod in unison between swigs of beer. After all, we are a patriotic bunch. Ask any group of foreign visitors what is most striking about America and you will frequently hear that they notice all of the American flags, not just on government buildings but on private homes, vehicles, and clothing.
    Americans are terrifically proud of our ancestors’ rebellion against the world’s most powerful nation in the 18th century. And our Great Experiment in Democracy has been, mostly, a resounding success, and one that continues to inspire the world over. Yes, even in light of our historical pockmarks, from the treatment of American Indians, to the enslavement of Africans, and to the internment of Japanese Americans.
    Read the rest of this piece here:
    http://www.glittersnipe.com/2012/07/04/dont-tread-on-me-either/

  24. Engineer Of Knowledge May 26, 2013 1:01 pm

    Another thought Juan…when you want to bring up the communism aspect “Typical Marxist Thoughts” toward Princess Leia….do you not have a problem with companies closing the capitalist “Value Manufacturing” in this counrty only to reopen these same positions in Communist China, Viet Nam, etc? I lost friends who I served with to keep Communism from spreading but I guess if the 2% can put more into their pockets by embracing the values of Communism…..then it is now just OK Fine! I would ask you to reflect on the Memorial Day Holiday….. I know I will be.

  25. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 1:11 pm

    Engineer, Lenin said, that they were the heirs of Robespierre and the Jacobins. The French Revolution in itself was a failure, it brought terror and bloodshed and later an Emperor. The philosophical basis for the French Revolution was the Franco-German political philosophy school of thought. In Continental Europe, the idea of equality has been represented as the ethics of society against the ethics of private interests. The major exponents of the Franco-German ethico-political philosophy are Jean Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. One of the pillars of this school of thought is the assumption that pursuit of private interests is always necessarily contrary to the general interest. In other words, the pursuit of one’s private interests are a priori considered to be contrary to the so called common good. (this is the underlying idea of all progressive/statist policy and worldview) Thus, the system is based on the Absolute Rule of the Majority. (That’s why they detest the division of power, if only Republicans would collaborate!) The other pillar is that its ethics is based on the notion of what man ought to be, or on the creation of a new man. This ethical rationalist approach became the fundamental guideline for the development of the political theories that ended up in the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. Despotism has always existed, but the Continental Europeans managed to rationalize it, offering to mankind what is known as totalitarianism or the modern police state.
    The Founding Fathers here in the US, on the other hand, were influenced by the Anglo-American ethico-political philosophy established the legal recognition of the ethical validity of individual interests and is based on a notion that recognizes the fallibility of human nature. The Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by John Locke and David Hume; both considered the most outstanding representatives of this school of thought that proposes the limitation of political power and the protection of individual rights. Among the individual rights recognized is the right to the pursuit of happiness; which is the actual recognition that pursuit of private interests is not necessarily contrary to the general interest as the Continentals sustain. This system is known as the Rule of Law, which is the limitation of political power and the respect for individual rights.
    Unlike the Continental Europeans, there is no a priori contradiction between private and public interests nor is the pursuit of happiness forbidden by any categorical imperative (as Kant would say). The realm of individual rights, considered as the lack of coercion expands in the Anglo-American society while it withered on the other side of the English Channel.
    The Franco-German and the Anglo-American political philosophies represent two antithetical systems: Absolute Rule of the Majority and the Rule of Law. Under the Absolute Rule of the Majority the rights of the majority represent nothing more than the absolute power of the governments. These governments have in the name of the people, in the name of the common good, in the name of social justice and fairness, which is known a priori only to those who are in power, governed not only undermining but also eliminating individual rights. Their ethical foundation stems from the idea that private interests are necessarily contrary to the public interest or common good. This means that all idea of limited political power is actually precluded; all in the name of the common good, social cause, the superior race, the masses,the nation, or social justice. The majority can do as it pleases and government only exists to secure that right and carry out the will of the majority. It is Rousseaunian in principle and Jacobin in character. There is no limiting moral principle and any atrocity can be rationalized and thus fulfilled.
    Thus, this is the reason why statist , right or left, admire and speak wonders of the French Revolution while ignoring, overlooking , criticizing, have contempt or just despise the US Revolution, its Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

  26. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 1:19 pm

    Juan,

    You’re a lawyer. You don’t know what it means to live from paycheck to paycheck. I currently make $1400 per month. Between utilities, taxes, medical bills, groceries, and other expenses, that $1400 gets eaten up quickly.

  27. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 1:22 pm

    This moderate lefty doesn’t despise the US Revolution nor the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

  28. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 1:56 pm

    Leia: Do you actually believe I was a lawyer all my life? You have no idea nor a clue about me or where I lived, what I have seen, and what I have gone through. By what I read you seem young, probably in your late 20’s or early 30’s. Now I know $1,400 is not enough, I know that very well, believe me. And I know it sucks. But I don’t know what you do , where you work. But that said, and with all due respect, at your age, in my 20’s , in Argentina , it would have been a dream to make 1400 a month. May I ask, do you drive to work? Or do you live in a city like New York where it isn’t really necessary? If you drive do you avoid using the AC in your car when it is hot, so as to save gas? If you have a car, do you have an AC, radio,disc player? Do you have air-conditioning and central heating? Do you have hot running water? If you live in an apartment with elevators, do they work? Is your power cut-off regularly? Do you rent or pay mortgage? When you rent, do you necessarily need two property owning collateral guarantors, and have to pay up front at least 4 months rent?
    Do your utilities go up every month? I mean do you pay 5-10% more every single month? Does your rent go up every single month? How about what you spend on groceries, do they rise 5-10% per month? At a minimum. Have your ever gone to the supermarket and found that there was a shortage of basic, bread, milk or even toilette paper? Or how about going to the pharmacy and finding shortages there? When you need to buy tampons, do you always find them or are they in shortage? What would you do if you couldn’t find any? Do you only have one brand or can you choose among many? When you get to your home, is your street paved or is it a dirt street? Is it a muddy dirt street when it rains? Or when it is dry , does the dirt from the unpaved dirt street spread all over the air, which you breath, and your clothes and shoes are all full of dirt? Is your neighborhood infested with mosquitoes, cockroaches or rats, that you can see at daylight? Do you run out of money by the 10th of each month and have no credit card to use to make it to the 30th? Do you have a credit card? To open a checking account , did you have to provide a collateral guarantor who owned real estate, and did you have to have more than 5 yrs on a job?If you have a bank account are you able to freely withdraw your money and take cash from an ATM?
    Finally , do you see yourself earning the same 1400 , the same job, within 5 years? 10 years?
    These are just simple questions I ask.

  29. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 1:59 pm

    Leia: Are you a statist? If not then I was not referring to you.

  30. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 2:26 pm

    Juan,

    I’ve never heard of the term “statists” until I encountered you using it.

  31. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 2:33 pm

    In answer to all of your questions, I certainly realize that there are people worse off than me. That’s why I support social justice.

  32. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 6:38 pm

    Juan,

    I’m a file clerk in our local social services office, so I am very familiar with the American poor that Maggie mentioned about in her post at 12:26 pm today.

  33. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 7:36 pm

    Juan,

    If these Republicans keep up with their austerity measures, I worry that I may not even have a job in 5 years!

  34. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 7:52 pm

    Maggie: That is all you have? An article, that has no citation for its alleged facts and worst of all an article from the International Socialist? Seriously.
    I have just a few observations. What percentage of blacks in jail committed crimes against whites? Against blacks? 94% of black victims were killed by black offenders, while 86% of white victims were killed by white offenders. So I would think if you have more police patrolling black neighborhoods they are their to protect blacks. Imagine if there were no police presence, there would be an outcry! The police has abandoned us to crime they would say.
    80k blacks die because of lack of health insurance? Really? Evidence please? In the heyday of Obamacare debate the Democrats stated (and lied) that 20k people died per yr because of lack of insurance. In any event if that were true, then why wait till 2014 to implement the wonderful plan that will save lives called Obamacare? Why let people die? Never got an answer from the Democrats about that. But we all now, it had to be implemented after the election.
    Blacks are less likely to own their home and black women are 5 to 6 times more likely to receive sub-prime mortgages, and blacks pay higher interest rate than whites and are poorer that white. Did it ever occur to you that they have a bad credit scores and they have a bad scores because the have lower income which makes it hard for them to make ends meat, and that they have lower income because they have a lousy jobs and are poor and that they are poor because in the end they lack a good education? It’s all interrelated.
    Now it is surprising that after yrs of the Great Society experiment, minorities that have in effect become wards of the states are worse off. Did it ever occur to you to ask why, Asians in general have higher incomes than even whites in America? Don’t you think it might be due to the fact that the Asian community is not a warden of the state, like Hispanics and Blacks? Isn’t it curious that there is no Asian equivalent of “LA RAZA”? Isn’t it curious that there are no professional race baiters making a living out of the “racial issue” within the Asian community and that oh coincidence the Asian community thrives? Can you imagine a white equivalent of ‘La Raza” – THE RACE? Now I know that overall more whites are on welfare than blacks or Hispanics, 39% of whites versus 38% of blacks, 15% Hispanics and 2.5% Asians. But that is only because whites outnumber both blacks and Hispanics. In reality there are 227 million whites in American of which 11.6 million are on welfare, that’s 5.13% of whites. While there are 39.5 million blacks in America of which 11.3 are on welfare, that’s 28.75% of blacks on welfare. Imagine that, 30% of your community on welfare, effectively being under the ward of the state!
    But all this goes back to education. Who is in charge of education in this country? You are, the liberals, the pro-Democratic Party teachers Union! It is the Democrat Party that controls the education in this country! Where do we see permanent poverty and an underclass? In the inner cities of America. And who has politically controlled the inner cities for almost 6 decades? You have! The Democrat Party, the progressives! All of them, from Chicago, to LA and back to Philly , Detroit and New York. The Democrat party has owned these cities and school districts for decades.You make the policy, you divide the money, you make the school programs and you “educate” them! And every single year more and more money has been thrown and education over the past decades. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing! More ignorance , which leads to more poverty and more welfare recipients. Yes, some blacks and Hispanics are victims, but they are victims of the Democratic Party and their policies. You own it.

  35. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 7:59 pm

    Leia: So you never heard the word statist? I have been using it for over 25 years. In Argentina that’s what we liberals (in Argentina as in the rest of the world they use the term liberal (not conservative) to describe those in favor of individual rights, limited small government, and free markets. Leftist are just called progressives, or socialist) use to describe the main characteristic of the progressive left and event the military right, because both of them favor big government bureaucracies and government intervention in the economy. As I always say, one learns something new everyday. I know I do.

  36. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 8:12 pm

    Leia: Concerning your job. Wouldn’t it be better if you had everyday less and less people coming to your office because they have good paying jobs? Would it be better for you if you had another job, maybe in the private sector that pays more? Wouldn’t you be better off if the economy grew at a 6% yearly rate, and that there weren’t enough people in the workforce to cover the new jobs? Don’t you think that in that scenario salaries would rise because employers would be competing for workers? You job unfortunately does not depend on wealth creation but on taxation, the ability of government to take money from the private sector to pay and maintain the government, and of course its employees. If the private sector doesn’t grow and make money, there is nowhere for government to get money, and taxing business more does not promote growth. It’s like a dog trying to bite its tail. It will never get there, and eventually it gets tired and stops.

  37. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 8:27 pm

    Juan,

    I could care less about the political system in Argentina. That’s not where we’re living. Therefore, stick with the US system in these discussions.

  38. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 8:44 pm

    Leia: Do you believe that where there is a need there is a right? For every need a right?

  39. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 8:56 pm

    Leia: As for the Argentine or world political system, nothing really changes but the labeling. The content is the same, whether they be progressives in Europe, Latin America or the US, or conservative/classic liberals in Europe, Latin America or the US. If you favor big government, social justice, redistribution, a hiper regulated economy and government intervention in the market, in the world you are a statist. If you favor small limited constitutional government , free market with sensible regulations and individual rights, you are a “liberal” in the world. You are only called a conservative in the US because the progressive left hijacked the term liberal in the 1930’s with FDR, giving birth to the modern egalitarian “liberal”.

  40. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 9:40 pm

    Leia: All the countries that have oppressive economic systems are based on “social justice”. Some have even outlawed poverty! Some even guarantee in the Constitution, the rights to housing, vacations, wealth redistribution, food, jobs, living salaries, the whole shop of social justice. Yet the reality is quite different. As a matter of fact there are less poor and more “social justice” (whatever that means) in the US, a country that doesn’t guarantee any of those rights, than in the other countries of the world that do. That’s the irony.

  41. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 9:42 pm

    As for being your brothers keeper, that’s all very good and I agree. But one thing is to voluntarily be your brothers keeper; quite another to force it, to have the government steal from one worker to give to another.

  42. Juan Domingo Peron May 26, 2013 9:44 pm

    As for public education, your link only confirms what I said, we spent Billions and Billions more ever year. Results? Poor.

  43. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 11:00 pm

    Ignoring the loony Guano Droppings here –

    Ideologies of the center-left:
    The main ideologies of the centre-left are social democracy, green politics, sometimes social liberalism (more towards the centre) and sometimes democratic socialism (more towards the left-wing). Throughout the world, the two groups generally support:
    > A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidised programmes of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
    > An extensive system of social security, with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the general public against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement (National Insurance contributions)
    > Equal rights and opportunity.
    > Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labour rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
    > A value-added tax and/or progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
    The term may be used to imply positions on the environment, religion, public morality and so on, but these are usually not the defining characteristics, since centre-right parties may take similar positions on these issues. A centre-left party may or may not be more concerned with reducing industrial emissions than a centre-right party.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_left

    Now, I am going to watch some TV and then I am heading off to bed. Good night.

  44. Princess Leia May 26, 2013 11:08 pm

    Highlighting this part in the education link:

    #3 – States and localities are the primary sources of K-12 education funding and always have been.
    In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government’s share is 8.3 percent. The remaining 8.9 percent is from private sources, primarily for private schools. This division of support remains consistent with our nation’s historic reliance on local control of schools.

  45. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 10:32 am

    As far as being my brother’s/sister’s keeper, Juan, there are some things that individuals cannot reasonably achieve on their own and/or that the free market will not provide. That’s when using the tools of government can help.

    The tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma is a good example of what I’m talking about. Individuals cannot possibly be expected to deal with the full impacts of an earthquake, hurricane, or other natural disaster, and the “free” market is likely to respond to such disasters with price gouging and is certainly not going to fund rebuilding public infrastructure that is destroyed by the disaster. As such, government can and should play a primary role in ensuring that communities and people are able to survive a disaster and rebuild in its wake.

    Another example is food safety. One hundred and seven years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, which exposed the horrible working and sanitary conditions in America’s meat packing industry, including the significant amount of contamination that our country’s meat supply was subjected to. There is, of course, little that individuals could do on their own to make sure that the meat they ate was not contaminated, and industry refused to act. So, pressured by public outcry generated by The Jungle and other Progressive Era muckraking, the government stepped up to help, passing the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act. A series of food safety laws have followed, vastly improving public health and making the U.S. food system one of the safest in the world.

    You can read more about that here: http://www.winningprogressive.org/progressivism-keeping-rat-st-out-of-baby-food-for-more-than-100-years

    Now, I’m off to celebrate Memorial Day with family, so good day to you.

  46. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 10:49 am

    What I and that article are pointing out is that you hardcore conservatives need to evaluate the value of programs before you start making all these extreme cuts.

  47. Juan Domingo Peron May 27, 2013 11:37 am

    Leia: Providing Aid, safety and security during a catastrophe is one of the essential functions of the government, state and federal. So no one is arguing against that. But what you will see is the claim that the money must be spent on helping those affected by such a disaster and not on politicians pet projects! Unfortunately that is what happened with the Sandy Aid. The problem is that corruption is so rampant and harder to control the bigger the government is.
    As for food safety, I still have to find a conservative who is against those laws. Why is it that every time conservatives speak about cutting wasteful spending in government the left always says we want to poison our children, and have dirty air and water? Or that we want to throw grandma over the cliff? Why is it that you never ever admit that there is corruption , wasteful spending and thousands of ridiculous red tape and unnecessary regulations that have nothing to do with with food safety, clean air and water or children and grandma? I mean you guys circle the wagon around the big bureaucracy every single time. And I know why, you are a good example. You work for government, therefore you are a natural constituent of the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party has become the government party. That’s why it is not hard to imagine bureaucrats going after the Tea Party and Conservatives in the IRS. And they don’t need to be told by Obama what to do, you people already know what to do to defend your interests which is the Democratic Party’s interest, which is big government. Since the existence and growth of big government is in your interest and that of the Democrat Party, it is essential that you raise taxes and get more money so as to maintain big government. But all that is said to be done in the name of the poor, not in the name of your selfish interest, which is for you personally to maintain your job and for the Democrat Party to hold on to power. So anyone that is against such a scheme must be destroyed. All in the name of the poor of course, poor that happen to coincidentally, to yours and the Democratic Party’s benefit, always remain poor. So, it is easy to understand why for example you have, so far, always justified what the IRS has done targeting conservatives. And I’m pretty sure that if you were working for the IRS you wouldn’t give it a second thought if your were told to target conservatives. For you it would be natural, and even justified. You wouldn’t, as those in the IRS, give it a second thought that you were undermining the Tea Party and conservatives Constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. You just wouldn’t, and really can’t, understand what’s wrong with that, especially since conservatives deserve it because they are “evil” and therefore must be stopped.
    Have a good day.

  48. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 11:49 am

    ROFLMAO @ Guano’s Guano Droppings today!

  49. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 11:53 am

    I’ve lost my patience with you Juan. From now on, you and your ridiculous comments are going on ignore.

  50. Juan Domingo Peron May 27, 2013 12:25 pm

    You ignore them because you know it is convenient for you to do so! LOL! Have a good Memorial Day with your loved ones Leia.

  51. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 12:54 pm

    Maggie,
    Engineer,

    Have at him. He’s all yours.

    🙂

  52. Juan Domingo Peron May 27, 2013 2:00 pm

    Facts:
    -The 2007 bridge that collapsed in Minnesota was the result of a faulty design decades ago. It should never have been built as it was. Minnesota got a 46% increase in transportation funds from Congress the year before. That amounted to a $1.1 billion windfall over five years – certainly plenty of money to conduct inspections. Also, the bridge just got inspected less than three months before its collapse. No one skipped inspecting the bridge. The NTSB found that there was a design defect, having nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of “infrastructure spending.”
    -The Washington State Department of Transportation did not consider this bridge dangerous. It’s not like it was built 58 years ago and ignored after that. It was routinely inspected and repairs performed when needed. It was considered “structurally deficient” because the style was outdated, not because of any known structural defect.
    The bridge didn’t collapse out of the blue like the one in Minnesota a few years ago. A semi truck hit it. The entire bridge didn’t collapse, only the section that was compromised. The rest is still standing. If not for that truck, the bridge might have stood for another 30, 40, even 50 years without falling into the water.
    I’m all for spending money on roads and bridges. It’s the Federal Government’s job to maintain, upgrade, replace roads and bridges that carry interstate commerce. Maybe if they spent less money studying shrimp on treadmills they’d have more money for roads and bridges.

  53. Juan Domingo Peron May 27, 2013 2:40 pm

    Again, I repeat for those you might not understand and have problems with the concept of known as “discernment” : Providing Aid, safety and security during a catastrophe is one of the essential functions of the government, state and federal. So no one is arguing against that. But what you will see is the claim that the money must be spent on helping those affected by such a disaster and not on POLITICIANS PET PROJECTS! Unfortunately that is what happened with the HURRICANE SANDY AID!

  54. Princess Leia May 27, 2013 4:26 pm

    In 2014, We The People will vote the hypocrites out of office! 🙂

  55. Princess Leia May 28, 2013 6:59 am

    New York Times story on how the IRS was right to flag Tea Party groups for closer inspection. These Tea Party groups were participating in election activities despite claiming 501(c)(4) status as social welfare organizations. Interestingly, the Times story doesn’t mention the original IRS language was “exclusively” for social welfare, but was changed to “primarily” without congressional approval in 1959.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/politics/nonprofit-applicants-chafing-at-irs-tested-political-limits.html?hp&_r=3&

  56. Princess Leia May 28, 2013 1:42 pm

    Like that article, empathy also serves as a key basis for a wide array of policies that I strongly support even though I do not directly benefit from them.

  57. Dave Martin May 29, 2013 11:54 am

    Progressives are not letting any tragedy go to waste as is par for the Obama cultists.

  58. Princess Leia May 29, 2013 12:15 pm

    @ Dave – Lulz!

  59. Ronald May 29, 2013 12:32 pm

    Dave, I suppose you would say that we should ignore bridge collapses in Washington State and Minnesota, and numerous other examples, as you do not live in either state or places that have had natural disasters, so let them deal with their own problems, and not expect all taxpayers to share in the burden of infrastructure. In other words, everybody for themselves, and to hell with society and others in trouble and less fortunate! Is that the kind of person you are? If so, I am glad I do not know you well, as such people should be on an island by themselves, since they have no social commitment to others, and are totally selfish and self centered!

  60. Dave Martin May 29, 2013 1:03 pm

    Tax payers have shared more than needed to correct infrastructure repairs, it is only their proper application that is lacking. Reminds me of the worn out plea to more money to solve education problems. Progressives will never have enough of my property, it is their nature.

  61. Princess Leia May 29, 2013 4:17 pm

    Dave and Guano – Believer’s right up to the last drop of koolaid, I would expect no less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.