"[W]e can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
– Justice Louis Brandeis, quoted by Chrystia Freeland, "Thanks to Pope Francis, Revolt Against the Global Super-Rich Is Underway", Huffington Post, 2014-01-21
For this and more Brandeis quotes, see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis.
Ironically, just before I was reading Freeland's article I heard on an old "Godmorgon, världen" podcast that Rush Limbaugh called Pope Francis a Marxist. See "The message of Pope Francis can survive Rush and the rest", Mary C. Curtis, Washington Post, 2013-12-06.
So, according to Rush Limbaugh, Justice Louis Brandeis was a Marxist.
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rush Limbaugh. Show all posts
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Rush Limbaugh with his big mike vs. thousands of little mikes
An interesting campaign has started to get companies to pull their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show because of his remarks about law student Sandra Fluke. It is a twitter campaign to get companies to not advertise on Rush Limbaugh's show. You can find a bit more at "Twitter handles of advertisers still on Limbaugh's radio show; 13 now dropped".
There is a small problem that can be overcome. Many advertisers don't specify placement because their costs are less. However, they can also request that ads not be placed on certain shows.
If you have time, and you'll need it, you'll find many interesting views in the comments following the above article.
Darn, TurboTax is in the list. TurboTax didn't send me a free CD this year and I haven't ordered it yet. Should I choose another program or use one I know? Dither, dither:(
BTW, I'm sure somebody's dreamed this up, but Rush is in where angels fear to tread.
There is a small problem that can be overcome. Many advertisers don't specify placement because their costs are less. However, they can also request that ads not be placed on certain shows.
If you have time, and you'll need it, you'll find many interesting views in the comments following the above article.
Darn, TurboTax is in the list. TurboTax didn't send me a free CD this year and I haven't ordered it yet. Should I choose another program or use one I know? Dither, dither:(
BTW, I'm sure somebody's dreamed this up, but Rush is in where angels fear to tread.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Arguments for new political parties
I've had in my notes for a week a couple of articles about this year's elections, but haven't taken the time to comment on them. This morning a change of plans had me staying at home, and I took the time to catch up. Catching up included scanning the New York Times web site for articles of interest. The first I chose was "Paranoia Strikes Deep", by Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2009-11-09. When I started to write a note about it, I rediscovered the two older opinion articles and the three seemed to tie together.
Ross Douthat is now the resident "conservative" at the New York Times, David Brooks apparently not being conservative enough. However, Douthat is not a conservative in the current sense, but an older, more respectable sense. Instead of saying no to anything "liberals" propose and adhering strictly to a set of conservative "principles", he says, "Wait a minute, let's think about this" and looks at issues from many perspectives.
Last week Douthat wrote "Three's Company", about the governor's race in New Jersey and the Congressional race in New York. He praised the "spoilers" for shaking things up. He wrote that we need more third parties to break up the corruption of one-party states (both red and blue) and the inertia caused by an intransigent minority. He hoped that new local parties would emerge that would address local issues locally rather than along national fault lines.
David Brooks, "What independents want", New York Times, 2009-11-06, wrote that independents want stability. Independents are moving to the right because they don't see government solving the problems that affect their lives. This should not be seen as a ray of hope for Republicans except in that independents will most likely give less support to Democrats. Brooks didn't write it, but I wonder if too many independents stay home when they are unhappy rather than vote against the party in power. I wonder what would happen if these unhappy independents voted with blank ballots instead of staying home. Or better yet, if a new moderate party arose that promised more stability.
Paul Krugman wrote that the paranoiacs have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is now a voice of moderation but he has no power. The power resides in, surprise, the media - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. The result will be that we have "a rump party with no interest in actually governing" but enough power to prevent anybody else from governing.
I think Douthat is on to something. Instead of looking for new parties to start at the top around some popular figure like Colin Powell, we need to have parties start around local and state issues. Jesse Ventura did it once; can someone else do it with more pragmatic issues. "Rest assured", we really do need more choice in politics.
Ross Douthat is now the resident "conservative" at the New York Times, David Brooks apparently not being conservative enough. However, Douthat is not a conservative in the current sense, but an older, more respectable sense. Instead of saying no to anything "liberals" propose and adhering strictly to a set of conservative "principles", he says, "Wait a minute, let's think about this" and looks at issues from many perspectives.
Last week Douthat wrote "Three's Company", about the governor's race in New Jersey and the Congressional race in New York. He praised the "spoilers" for shaking things up. He wrote that we need more third parties to break up the corruption of one-party states (both red and blue) and the inertia caused by an intransigent minority. He hoped that new local parties would emerge that would address local issues locally rather than along national fault lines.
David Brooks, "What independents want", New York Times, 2009-11-06, wrote that independents want stability. Independents are moving to the right because they don't see government solving the problems that affect their lives. This should not be seen as a ray of hope for Republicans except in that independents will most likely give less support to Democrats. Brooks didn't write it, but I wonder if too many independents stay home when they are unhappy rather than vote against the party in power. I wonder what would happen if these unhappy independents voted with blank ballots instead of staying home. Or better yet, if a new moderate party arose that promised more stability.
Paul Krugman wrote that the paranoiacs have essentially taken over the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich is now a voice of moderation but he has no power. The power resides in, surprise, the media - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. The result will be that we have "a rump party with no interest in actually governing" but enough power to prevent anybody else from governing.
I think Douthat is on to something. Instead of looking for new parties to start at the top around some popular figure like Colin Powell, we need to have parties start around local and state issues. Jesse Ventura did it once; can someone else do it with more pragmatic issues. "Rest assured", we really do need more choice in politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)