Honestly not trying to start trouble, but...

[Mythsaje]

...I've noticed more than a few pro-DLC posts recently and I've been wondering. What, specifically, are the pro-DLC "moderates" and "centrists" bringing to the table?

I have always considered myself something of a moderate, but I've come to believe I'm a moderate populist, which, I'm afraid, puts me at odds with the moderate corporatists of the DLC.

Even more to the point--what has the DLC crowd really brought to the table in the last several years? And please don't say Bill Clinton's two-term Presidency, the first Democrat to win two terms since FDR. Clinton's success owes more, in my opinion, to his ability to connect to people than his politics. That's why running Clintonesque candidates hasn't garnered the support the DLC seemed to expect...they weren't the Big Dawg and therefore relatively disposable. He had an ability to connect with people that shouldn't be downplayed, but I believe it was as much a natural talent as anything learned.

Corporatist "moderates" masquerading as Dems might be seen as indirectly responsible for the fix we find ourselves in now. Why do I say this?

Because it was the "business as usual" folks in Washington that allowed the Republican "Contract With America" to strike a chord with the American people, costing them (and us) the majority the left had held in congress for roughly the past 40 years. The corruption and graft that many seemed to take for granted had finally reached the point that the public said "enough!"

They voted for a change. Only to receive more of the same, but that's another story entirely.

In my eyes there's one major difference between the Republicans and the DLCers. The Republicans cater to religious extremists...the DLCers, while guilty of occasional collaboration, do NOT. Both are more beholden to corporate interests than their average constituents, and neither will risk their corporate funding to go to bat for the average citizen. You know--the REAL persons, not just the artificial kind created by legal fiction.

I realize the Dems like to think of themselves as "big tent" but it's hard to stay inside the tent when one group keeps stealing the tent stakes and helping to spread malicious gossip about the rest of the people milling around inside.

I don't consider myself an extremist. I actually agree with the right on a few issues. Gun control, for one. As long as I'm a law abiding citizen I believe I have the right to self-defense by whatever means at my disposal.

I'm also opposed to the Drug War...a stance held by more "officials" on the right than on the left at this point in time. I'm for reducing taxes (or, more accurately--reducing waste of tax money which would, hopefully, eventually bring about lower taxes). I don't believe throwing money at a problem will necessarily solve it.

I don't believe in "State's Rights" because, in my opinion, only individuals have rights. But I do believe in a more responsive government, which I believe requires more power collected locally rather than being farmed out to the Feds.

I think Education should be our primary focus...bar none. I don't believe in propping up a failed system by introducing band-aid measures. If something is broken, it needs to be fixed. And, unless I've completely lost mental cohesion here, our education system is broken. Standardized testing isn't going to save it. Nor is longer hours or a 12 month school year.

I've got some theories about education, but this isn't really the time and the place to digress into them. I'm just saying--we need to stop PRETENDING we give a damn about education and do something about it. Rather than addressing the root causes of the problems facing our education system, the left has seemingly wanted to continue throwing money at it, hoping that it's money that's the source of the problem. But it's just one facet of it.

Everyone in this country needs and deserves a quality education...skills for everyday life, the ability to examine his/her world critically, and the ability to disseminate information in a clear, productive manner.

When our kids leave High School they should know how to read, balance a checkbook, perform minor auto repairs, use a computer, analyze information (like the NEWS) critically, and communicate reasonably and effectively with other people. At a MINIMUM. As long as our schools aren't turning out a vast majority of students who can do these things, they are failing!

In my opinion education is as important, if not MORE important, than healthcare.

I don't believe socialism is the answer to our woes...for a variety of reasons, beginning with the fact that socialism may work well on a small scale, it's almost impossible on a large scale. Like all forms of gathering power in a smaller and smaller area, it is too easily corrupted.

So...am I "Hard Left?"

I don't think so. But I'm opposed to giving artificial persons (AKA Corporations) more say in the government than most real people have. So I'm a populist. I believe an educated populace can govern better than an elite few.

What I want to know is why any Dem would disagree with this...

[vi5]

1. I would have no problem with the DLC...

If they didn't spend as much if not more time bashing other democrats and other people under the "big tent" than they did fighting the true enemy, the republicans and the religious right. I'm not against moderate voices, nor am I as a general rule anti-corporate even. But I'm for populism and fairness and the DLC is agains that. Clinton won not because he was a moderate, he won because he CAME ACROSS as a liberal. It was only once you really examined his policies and decisions was it obvious that he was a moderate. What appealed to people about him was that he came across as someone from working class roots (which he was) and as someone who gave off touchy feely liberal vibes. People who hated Clinton hated him because he seemed like a liberal and came across as one. And the people that loved him loved him BECAUSE he was a liberal.

[wli]

2. mandatory Malliavin calculus!!!

Unrealistic, but why not set higher goals? The reason, of course, is because they're deliberately trying to dumb us all down.

[bananas]

5. Could you explain that?

For those of us who thought you meant "Machiavellian".

[wli]

18. Malliavin calculus is a.k.a. the stochastic calculus of variations

It involves such things as the Ito integral, stochastic differential equations, the (Norbert) Wiener chaoses, and similar topics. It's used for economic purposes (e.g. Black-Scholes can be derived with it) and physical purposes (stochastic mechanics). It's considered more advanced than the calculus of variations proper and needs a great deal of material from real analysis and measure theory (branches of mathematics) to be effectively presented. It's called "Malliavin calculus" after the name of a person, Malliavin, who contributed a lot of fundamental material to the subject.

The calculus of variations, to which the Malliavin calculus is not directly related apart from a superficial resemblance, is a field of mathematics centered around optimization problems in the space of functions. For instance, the position of an object as it relates to time (its trajectory) is such a function, and an integral involving that and its derivatives can describe kinetic and potential energy over the course of time. The laws of motion specify it moves in such a manner that the integral is minimized. So it's very pervasively used in physics and sometimes also in economics. Dynamic programming (unrelated to the computer science topic) is considered a subfield of it that is highly pertinent to robotics and mechanical engineering, and is worth mentioning as part of its more applied aspects.

The calculus of variations is in turn considered a more advanced topic built atop of the normal integral and differential calculus, which is more commonly taught in late high school (sometimes) and college (not in all majors). It's more realistic to get better coverage of plain old calculus and maybe introductory or optional/honors study of the calculus of variations in the near term.

In summary, these things are crucial bases to advanced technology such as statistical modelling, engineering, the natural sciences, and so on. It's not a matter of theory. It's the language in which these affairs are couched, and without such things as these we are doomed to scientific illiteracy.

[lostinacause]

86. Math major?

I couldn't even find a course directly relating to it at my university though some if not all of it was in other courses.

I too am disappointed with the mathematical background that people are given, especially pertaining to economics. I have been all but guaranteed an "A" in my mathematical economics course and I only have two levels of calculus (up to and including multi variable), an introductory course in partial differential equations, and a systems of linear equations course.

[wli]

87. yes, I was a math major

Googling for Malliavin calculus will turn up some textbook-ish PDF files on the internet.

[bahrbearian]

3. How about "Grand Theft Auto" huh you really want that game around?

[Mythsaje]

4. I'm more worried about

"Grand Theft America."

I think making legislative noise about a stupid video game is a big waste of time and money. OUR time and money, when you get right down to it.

[ContraBass Black]

"Grand Theft America."

I like that. I'm going to use that.

[Mythsaje]

17. Be my guest...

I coined it on another thread a few weeks back. Liked it immensely.

[sunnystarr]

79. I love it too!! Great sound bite! (nt)

[Lilith Velkor]

81. a flash for you to enjoy

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

[wli]

21. there are interesting "hidden messages" in the game...

In particular, ones that actually promote the authoritarian and religious fundamentalist agenda.

For one, CJ's womanizing is an apathetic affair where his monotone commentary is almost exclusively for the purpose of evading the need to respond. Despite this, the only way for CJ to extract a "reward" in terms of access to cars or special outfits is to "treat them well" enough to get some percentage approval rating. It somewhat transparently mocks the casual attachments more common in today's society, and uses Pavlovian tactics to reward dedication. And there is no explicit sex or nudity anywhere in the game as it is shipped.

Second, the whole "killing cops" affair in it is grossly mischaracterized. There are no rewards anywhere in the game for killing police officers. Rather, it's heavily penalized. When a cop is killed (most often by accident during gang wars), it provokes a response from which CJ must be made to flee, and ultimately pay in monetary terms for spray painting cars to disguise them.

Third, whatever drug use is there is actually done by corrupt police officers and enemy gang members. CJ himself eschews drug use, and has no way to be made to do drugs by the player.

Fourth, theft is not particularly emphasized. Generally it has to be done by stealth, and about the only thing that can be stolen is cars. It's about the only crime that can actually be committed besides graffiti in predetermined locations without incurring some intense "conflict." What one is generally faced with is playing through missions, searching for hidden objects (horseshoes, oysters, hidden camera shoots, gang graffiti to paint over). The missions are by and large scarface -like things or often plain silly, or car races, or sometimes even humanitarian missions such as firefighting or ambulance driving. The gang fights are somewhat low-key martial conflict affairs, and actually get tedious after a while.

What actually comes out is rather soft-pedaled and quite pro-authoritarian. The role of the police is as an undefeatable, perpetual persecutor. Most of the remainder of the game is rather thoroughly planned, and you by and large have to "follow directions" in some sense or other (if you read guides, literally) to go through with it -- otherwise, the cops will get you. The "challenge," if there is such, is really to find trick moves in various missions or hidden objects. So it's a bit beyond strange that the whole cadre of Tipper Gore wannabes actually comes out against it. The game is literally written as if it were almost on their behalf, but cast in terms with which those who might attempt anti-authoritarianism or allegiance with e.g. gang culture can be "sucked in" and so made to swallow the authoritarian and prudish message.

[livinginphotographs]

45. Interesting post.

I hadn't thought of it that way before.

[HadItUpToHere]

40. Grand Theft Auto...???

what's that got to do with the price of gas in Peoria?

IMHO, animated video games are not something that the government should be concerned with- if parents don't want their kids playing it- it's up to them to be Parents.

[bahrbearian]

48. Ask the DLC, or should I say Hilliary?

[HadItUpToHere]

88. ???

I don't quite understand what you're saying in your post...

but as far as the DLC/Hillary- I am NO fan of either. I predicted the kerry/edwards ticket to friends in the summer of 2003, telling them that the dlc was at the heart of everything that is wrong with the party-

it's almost as if the dlc are fifth columnists that have infiltrated and corrupted the party for the sake of, and at the behest of the repugs.

[Mythsaje]

62. Uh-huh...

Very much part of my original point.

:)

[whalerider55]

6. agreeable sorta

Mythsaje-

I agree on the locus of the position-


"we need to stop PRETENDING we give a damn about education and do something about it. Rather than addressing the root causes of the problems facing our education system, the left has seemingly wanted to continue throwing money at it, hoping that it's money that's the source of the problem. But it's just one facet of it.

Everyone in this country needs and deserves a quality education...skills for everyday life, the ability to examine his/her world critically, and the ability to disseminate information in a clear, productive manner."


as an educator and social activist, and as a school board member, i'd love to hear more about your theories- offline, if you prefer.

but i gotta say, i don't believe any more you can seperate what iks happening in the home and the community from what is happening in schools. generational poverty, and irresponsible allocation or withholding of resources (lack of coherent planning and accountability) to break the cycle of poverty that condemns a lot of urban and rural kids to second rate academic experiences. charter schools, which appeal to me as one of many alternatives, have rapidly become a tool of the right wing to set up private schools on the public dime- at least it is that way here in MA.

schools are apart of the big picture, but community values and leadership are also factors. we have allowed the right to focus on whether intelligent design should be taught, and been suckered into abandoning the promise that all kids will have an equal chance to learn.

the last thing i want is a frickin for-profit corporation teaching my kid about the responsibilites of citizenship.

that shouldn't be a dem or repub position. that should be an american position.

whalerider

[evlbstrd]

7. Regarding your comment on "throwing money" at problems

like education.
Like it or not, a good education costs money.
Teachers should be treated and paid as the professionals they are, on a par with doctors or attorneys. We put our childrens' futures in their hands.
Students need access to textbooks, computers, libraries, decent meals while in school, a nurse on staff. The list goes on and on.
The district my children attended has been slashing all of the above and more due to lack of adequate funding, while NCLB does even more damage.
Nothing is free.

[Mythsaje]

12. I agree...

a good education isn't free. So it should be funded. But I think we need to really evaluate what's going wrong with it and figure out how to fix it before we just throw money at the same programs that aren't working now.

[evlbstrd]

16. I thought I listed some of what's wrong.

Pay the teachers. Fund the schools. Which programs are we throwing money at? NCLB? Hardly.

[Mythsaje]

19. I'm talking in general...

Funding the schools is important...vital, even. But teaching the right skill sets is even more important, in my opinion. Teaching kids how to learn...how to find, absorb, and share information...how to examine it critically and find flaws in general assumptions.

My niece is fourteen and at near the top of her class...and yet I see astounding gaps in her knowledge that I don't think should be there. They spent 2 years on African-American history (important, yes...but two years?--she knows practically nothing about the founding of this country beyond what you learn very early on. Nothing about the Constitution and the thoughts behind it).

It's little stuff like this that bugs me. That's not a problem with funding...that's a problem with curriculum...a problem with the approach toward teaching.

[evlbstrd]

22. Curriculum is a problem.

That is a problem with your school board, not the federal government. Most boards are elected, and they use issues like African-centric curricula to get there, especially in urban districts. Teachers are also forced to teach to standardized tests. NCLB only pushes harder in that direction. And NCLB is underfunded. Fundamental reform can only come from the voters. Voters must understand that you get the education you pay for.

So, again, where is the money being thrown?

[Mythsaje]

24. At the moment it's not...

I agree that NCLB is a joke. I think teaching kids to take tests is counter-productive...and passing a law that you refuse to fund is just stupid.

I know curriculum is designed locally. But I'm not just talking on a federal level here. I'm talking ALL levels of government.

[evlbstrd]

28. You still haven't answered my question.

Regarding education, how are we throwing money away? My contention is that we are throwing enough.

[Terran]

30. This is true for other areas than just education

Republicans have made the false assumption that because a program doesn't seem to work as it should that it should be cut or reworked. One of the core problems with our social safety net is that it is chronically underfunded. I'm not talking about creating a welfare state; I'm talking about "throwing money" at programs that work great but typically run out of money halfway through their fiscal year, programs that, if their funding were increased ten-fold, could accomplish ten times as much as they do.

I admit I have a small agenda here because I work in the field of housing and homelessness, so I see close up what HUD does and what my own state does. And HUD's programs DO WORK, and have an enormously beneficial effect on our social fabric--Section 8 Housing, Community Development Block Grants, McKinney-Vento Funding for Homelessness Programs (what I work with)--all of these have a very beneficial impact. But if their budgets all went up 1000% percent, every poor person in America could have a safe decent place to live, for starters. So I think that the whole paradigm of "throwing money at a problem" is a false one, because it suggests that money plays no role in good governance.

[Mythsaje]

33. I won't disagree with that...

in fact, I strongly opposed what they considered "welfare reform." It does society no good to force people to get low-paying jobs that end up taking more out of the coffers through Earned Income Tax Credits--through which it's possible to get far more out of the tax coffers than you put in--rather than tying it to effective training and education (NOT BCTI or some such crap), as well as subsidized childcare as long as it's required.

I think these programs CAN work, but I'm also aware they can be abused. A Bureaucracy that grows fat and complacent (and anyone who's ever watched a caseworker carry the same file around a welfare office for two hours and then treat a client like crap because they can will know what I mean) is a drain on precious resources that can be put to good use somewhere else.

Why not train recipients to BE caseworkers?

Just a thought.

Throwing money at a problem WITHOUT examining how that money is allocated is the issue I'm chasing here. I believe that inefficiency should never be rewarded...if it works, put money into it. If it has a money leak, plug the leak, then put money into it. If the system is inoperable, which some are, rebuild the system so it works properly, then put money into it. But don't just throw money at it hoping that money will fix the problem when the problem is systemic.

[Terran]

76. You make another common republican mistake here

At least I assume they "mistake" and aren't deliberately distorting things...they wouldn't do that, would they?...

What I'm talking about is your statement: "Throwing money at a problem WITHOUT examining how that money is allocated is the issue I'm chasing here." I totally agree, money the federal gov't distributes *should* be throughly accounted for, and this is one reason I get so hugely pissed off at the carelessness of the military in accounting for what they do. But as I said, I work with HUD money, and every penny of that money has to be accounted for. For the grants I work with, we don't just get handed a million bucks to spend, we have to "draw it down" from HUD as we go, on a monthly basis. And all our contractors have to keep records as good as ours, including keeping track of how much time they spend on activities relating to our grants. Anything we don't spend goes back to HUD automatically.

This is a departure from 30 years ago, when a lot of people got rich by building homes and housing projects with federal grant dollars. These checks and balances are already in place in most government funding; maybe not everywhere, but in most cases. I have no problem with accountability, but it's a mistake to equate spending lots of money on a problem with inefficient use of that money. I think it's a cliche that we hold onto because of the chronically lousey money management of the military.

And yes, abuse by the beneficiaries of the funding is always possible, but HUD, at least, has made it next to impossible to abuse their particular funding systems. Which is not say that some funded entities, such as the cities, don't spend their money on things that don't help the poor directly, but that's another story.

[evlbstrd]

37. Now, that's what I'm talking about.

Put the resources into people and the nation will prosper in truly meaningful ways.
Nobody really chooses to be poor.
Our government was established to promote the social good. It was understood that it took taxes to make it function. The greater the need, the higher the monetary cost. The current admin would have you believe that cutting taxes makes government more efficient. No. It leaves government with fewer resources to fund the services that the majority of citizens expect.

[Mythsaje]

50. I think "cutting" taxes is a bad idea.

I just loathe waste, graft, and corruption. I think it's counter-productive.

Seek efficiency in government spending and more money can be spent where needed.

[evlbstrd]

52. Separating private money from public policy is the cure.

[Mythsaje]

55. My friend and I

have discussed this on several occasions. We considered that political campaigns should be financed out of a collective pool, with no private donations to a candidate or party allowed.

[evlbstrd]

57. The constant need to raise campaign money is the deadliest poison

to a democracy.
Never mind that we never really had a true democracy. That's another thread.
But you and your friend are right. Restoring the Fairness Doctrine that was abolished by Ray-Gun is also necessary.

[Mythsaje]

66. Absolutely...

we also thought that media outlets should provide a certain amount of airtime to each candidate free of charge. It wouldn't even have to be a lot.

Or have a cable channel devoted specifically to this sort of thing, with simultaneous broadcasts and re-broadcasts via the web.

[evlbstrd]

70. It has to be on the airwaves first of all.

To make sure people who can't afford cable or net access get exposure. It should apply to all media, though.

[Mythsaje]

72. Optimally, yes.

I'm just not sure that's feasible.

[evlbstrd]

74. It is. It really used to be that way.

I don't know how old you are. But, there was a legal requirement, enforced, that all politcal opponents have equal coverage.

*snip*
The equal opportunity requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927. Legislators were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, "American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations." When the Radio Act was superseded by the Communications Act of 1934, the equal time provision became Section 315 of the new statute.
*snip*
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

[Mythsaje]

75. Makes me think of

how much I really hated the way they operated the debates...but, of course, had they allowed the Libertarians in, they might've stole some of Bush's votes...

[evlbstrd]

77. I grew up with Walter Cronkite.

And Huntley and Brinkley.
Cronkite is known as Uncle Walter. I remember seeing him cry on the air when JFK was killed. I remember Edward R. Murrow.
I also remember the free press movement, which spawned so-called "underground newspapers." This web site is a descendant of that movement. It really can push issues and stories out to the general public.

[Mythsaje]

32. We're not throwing enough...

but, on the other hand, if we're not throwing it at the right areas, there will never be any such thing as 'enough.' The solution isn't so much throwing money at it hoping that some deep systemic problem will solve itself through application of enough money, but, instead, by figuring out how to get the most bang for our buck.

One example? School construction. A school needs to be safe, well-built, and wired to the gills. What it DOESN'T need is a $50,000 plus marble boondoggle in the middle of it.

A school doesn't have to look pretty, it has to be safe and functional.

[evlbstrd]

39. I think you are referring to a 1% for Art project.

My city requires that public building projects set aside 1% of the budget for an art installation. That is a pittance. And many times the artist will have students participate in the project.
I'm an artist, and I will defend such "boondoggles" to the death.

[Mythsaje]

47. I don't mean art projects...

I'm talking about stuff that is figured into the initial cost of construction. I'd rather see something like what you're talking about that a huge marble edifice that does nothing but give the contractor more money and steal it from the education fund.

[evlbstrd]

54. Now you're talking about architecture and design.

I see no reason to house students in drab buildings. Make schools inviting, functional and safe. And the contractor doesn't determine those specs in a building.

[Mythsaje]

60. I realize that...

but if an architectural geegaw costs 50,000 bucks, how many schoolbooks or computers would that buy?

[evlbstrd]

63. Is this a public elementary or secondary school you're talking about?

Or a public university or college?
Most building funds for post-secondary schools come from donors, and are often earmarked for such geegaws.
And why do we have to divorce education from the surroundings? The various arts should surround students. That includes the architecture and design of the school's buildings.

[Mythsaje]

64. Not if it takes away

from the general budget. If someone wants to privately donate something, fine...but we can't have teachers paying for materials out of their own pockets, or constantly hounding parents for money because there isn't enough to go around.

And as far as artwork goes--why not have someone donate a mural, or sculptures? Or get the more talented students to paint them? Some of the grafitti artists are damn good. They could use a slightly more productive outlet.

I'm talking junior high and (particularly) high schools here, btw.

[evlbstrd]

69. Look, I agree that it shouldn't come out of the budget

if it adversely affects the education of the kids. But I really do believe that the surroundings can beneficially influence the students. And there are many benefactors donating artwork. Students routinely design and install art. I can't agree with letting kids use spray paint in the hallways of school buildings, though. That shit is toxic as hell. Why not fund arts programs and show them other ways to channel that creativity?

[Mythsaje]

71. I'm all for that...

I'm an artist of a sort myself, after all.

[evlbstrd]

73. It's a spark of creativity that is in all of us.

It should be nurtured in all of its constructive forms.

[WillyT]

41. Double Teacher's Salaries, Cut Class Sizes In Half...

Golden-Parachute Teachers who are burned-out...

Just to name a few necessary, BUT EXPENSIVE things that are critical.

Also, college loans for teachers would not have to be paid back after you've taught for 10 years, and are in good standing.

:shrug:

Money, money, money, muh-ney, MU-nee!!!

:silly:

[Mythsaje]

49. These aren't bad suggestions...

I think they're quite worthwhile, in fact.

but will they address the issue of kids who don't want to or can't read? Will they address the issue of teaching the kids to examine assumptions about the world around them and critically evaluate what's being presented to them as "fact?"

I said in the original post that I didn't want to get into my theories on education itself, and where I see the largest flaws...but I think it may be necessary to explain a few things.

I think pushing standardized tests is a stupid move. I think learning by rote has a limited value in a constantly changing world where being able to think outside the box is often more valuable than being able to think inside it.

I believe that teaching innovation, exploration, critical thinking, and real world skills are paramount. I believe that we need to turn the fervent quest for knowledge that each child possesses from an early age into a mental rocket ship that can take them anywhere they want to go, without undue interference from entrenched bureaucracies and educational traditions. I believe that the interests of a child should be nurtured and given a chance to grow and expand as much as possible.

Kids need to be taught the basics, but they also need to learn how to stretch their own wings and learn how to love learning.

[WillyT]

58. Oh I Agree With You, But...

cutting class sizes in half means doubling the number of schools and teachers we presently have. Doubling teacher's salaries, while doubling the amount of teachers and schools, is gonna take education funding increases in many orders of magnitude.

The only thing we've done like that in our history would be...

The Military. And even then it's hardware over personnel.

:shrug:

I agree though... we need new thinking. Or we need another Sputnik.

:hi:

[Mythsaje]

65. We need to figure out

how to help schools develop creative ways to self-finance, at least to a limited extent. Perhaps a horticulture/botany program that sells flowers to the general public or to floral shops?

As an example.

Couldn't hurt.

[walldude]

44. Um.. throwing money at it?

Since when do we do that? Total Federal Defense Budget for 2005: $402,000,000,000.00 Total Federal Education Budget for 2005 $55,000,000,000.00 Oh and the defense budget doesn't include money for Iraq. Money is exactly what the school system needs. It just needs to go into the classrooms and not the pockets of the bureaucrats. Classes need to be smaller, they need proper equipment, up to date textbooks, computers. And for gods sake, the future of our nation lies in the hands of teachers, pay them what they are worth.

[Mythsaje]

51. Agreed...

but, while we're at it, we should ask--why do so many children burn out on learning so early?

[converted_democrat]

8. I have very little respect for DLC........

Pub-lite. The Pubs have messed up so much, on so many levels, and the DLC has capitalized on none of it. Just a bunch of corporate whores if ya ask me.

[FlemingsGhost]

9. Hey DLC! We've upped our standards. ... Up yours!

My sincerest thanks to Pat Paulsen.

[bpilgrim]

10. clinton gave the best POPULIST speeches since jfk and fdr

but we have learned that the DLC are SELFISH and ONLY wanna do it THEIR WAY, even after years of FAILURE :crazy:

the DLC can NOT survive in an awakened country with internet access ;->

well said :toast:

peace

[longship]

11. Right on.

I like your essay. It's very good.

We agree on the thrust of the essay. I don't agree with you on some issues. That's fine with me and it seems to be fine with you, too.

That's why I cannot understand the DLC. Have they really declared war on their own party? Are they really trying to split the party? How in the Sam Hell are they going to win another election if they accomplish their goal to drive away the liberals (who they call "extremists").

I'm a liberal. I am not an extremist. I merely want a responsible government which does not fight unnecessary wars, does not restrict my rights, and is accountable for its mistakes. I want it to take an appropriate stance on science, education, and the environment. I want it to remain non-infringing of religious liberties while maintaining a strict secular purpose. I am very comfortable with people owning guns. Healthcare is for everybody in the country, not just the employed, not just the wealthy. Education is also for everybody. The Constitution does not limit its rights to citizens.

I want my government to tell me the truth--ALWAYS. I want my government to stop fighting preemptive wars. I want my government to stop torturing people in my name. I want my government to work in a fair unbiased way, without rules that would tilt the playing field to the point where minority parties have no say. I want there to be consequences to those in government who do not obey the rules, or the rule of law.

Others may disagree with this. That's okay. We're all Dems. We can come to a concensus.


On edit: You didn't start trouble, you started understanding.

[Mythsaje]

15. I absolutely agree

with everything you've posted here. I've said basically the same things myself.

[roguevalley]

13. This came to me from David Sirota: If true, piss on them.

DLC Helps Spread Claim That "Progressives Destroyed America"

There is a case to be made that Democrats should go on Fox News, even if it is a right-wing network, because the network blasts its content to the general public. But there is no case to be made that any non-right-wing lunatic should take part in an event at the fringe-conservative Heritage Foundation entitled "Did the Progressives Destroy America?" Unlike a Fox News show where you are speaking to potentially swing voters, there is no "general public" audience at this event - it is an event designed to perpetuate among the Washington, D.C. insider establishment the worst right-wing dishonesty. Any participation by our side helps legitimize this nonsense. Yet, incredibly, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is headlining the event.

That's right, Will Marshall - President of the DLC's Orwellian-labeled "Progressive Policy Institute" - is lending his name to the event and taking part. I guess we shouldn't be surprised - this is the same Will Marshall who calls Iraq War critics "anti-American." Sure, Marshall will disingenuously argue that he will be speaking at the event to "debate" the issue. But he's been in Washington long enough to know exactly what he's doing: deliberately helping to legitimize the worst right-wing lies. If there was ever a question as to whether the DLC is actively trying to undermine Democrats and the progressive movement in general, there shouldn't be anymore. The answer is, yes they are.

Sources:
DLC participates in event about asking "Did the Progressives Destroy America?"
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/24/154043/959
DLC's Will Marshall calls Iraq War critics "anti-American":
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253472&kaid=124&subid=307

[tlsmith1963]

36. This Kind of Stuff Really Hurts Me...

...because it's coming from our own people. How *dare* the DLC say that kind of crap! We need to do something about these people. I don't want them in our party. If they want to be Republicans so bad, then just *go*! Stupid traitors...:mad:

Tammy

[smoogatz]

14. DLC=Democrats Lose Continually

The DLC and their brethren in the House (the so-called New so-called Democrats) are just as thoroughly corrupted by corporate cash as any Republican you can name. They can't champion the interests of working Americans because those interests are, to some degree, in conflict with the interest of the DLC's corporate masters. If the Democratic party has no populist message, it has no message it all. If it doesn't stand for working Americans, it stands for nothing and no one.

[Wizard777]

20. The only thing I want to hear from the center is......

their plans to prosecute Bush. They can heal the divide after Bush is safely in Jail. Before that and they are accessories after the fact to war crimes and treason. They are nothing more than the Republican Crimes Cover Up & Move Along Division of the Democratic Party. What is their cut of Bush & Cheney's War Profiteering? 5 Billion?

[Burried News]

25. Ouch. I agree.

They positively want no part of an effort to get to the bottom of:
THe WMD fraud
Plamegate
Prisoner abuse
Tom Delay's corruption
Media complicity with the Bush Administration

[applegrove]

23. I don't think in a world where Brazil, China, Russia & India will make

up a middle class 10 times bigger than the total of the West today...when this thing happens...as it is starting to...I don't think you want to have no American corporations selling there.

For sure you want coops and the like. But why would you not want to participate in huge growth areas in the world especially in industries where the US specializes.

This does not mean we want the Arms industry to be supplying cheap assault rifles to every dictator or terrorist group all over the world.

It does not mean that health care based on shared risk over the generations should not be a norm around the world (as it is in the West, except the USA, in China & India too ..not sure about Brazil & Russia's health systems).

Also. Do you want your country to specialize in consumer goods or advanced technology goods. Nanotechnology will be the plastic, nylon, internet, of the next century. And unfortunately, it seems the arms industry is the best (or gets subsidized the most) in coming up with this technology.

Would it not be good if the West could turn off the internet to a Saddam Hussein or knock out Satellites that North Koreans might use in the future for missiles?

So saying that corporations should exist but need regulation and should only ever be tools of human beings for making their lives better...is not being a neocon.

You call it DLC. I call it third way. The way between neocons & socialism. And like I said before where socialist health care delivers better, then that should be the norm across the world. So too - if emerging countries have needs like massive land reform or education reform they should be able to nationalize some industries for a time - to pay the bills.

So I don't pay attention to the DNC or DLC or whatever it is. I just feel that kids should be studying science and should have good schools. And there should be a way to stop the monsters who rule the odd country - by using the UN, and on rare occasions wars over human rights..that is high tech in origin and does not involve blood.

I am all for holding corporations accountable. I am all for buyblue which tries to identify the corporations who are backing these nuts in the WH. I am all for the power of consumers to make choices about ethics in the industries they support as consumers. IF these nuts in the WH want to make everything black & white - let's get informed about which corporations are good citizens and which are not - instead of ignoring it.

I just don't think one can ignore how big the middle class of the world will be (and is) and get rid of corporations.

Sorry if I offend. I think science teaching is important. As is science specialization.

You don't have to be a neocon to be for these things. Clinton was for it. He was also for socialist health care.


As to Clinton & Biden - well they do have to play politics and they are. I can hold my nose if I have to walk through a swamp to get back to a place and time where ideologues & delusional capitalist utopians are not in power. America is in actual fact the most conservative & religious country on the planet. Outside the middle east. I would not want politicians who could not appeal to many types of Americans. Of course in a perfect world they would be a perfect fix with my views and not pander to anyone. But nobody ever got elected that way unless they were just a stellar leader who changed how everyone sees the world and lead a populist movement. And I don't see that type of leader on the horizon because of all the slicing & dicing that has been done to various parts of the USA. Elliott Spitzer comes to mind (Clinton a little, Kennedy, FDR too) but I do not think he will be in the running for President this time around.

I am concerned that even if a Dem wins the WH next, the neocons will have so dismantled it with SS reform, tax reform, starving the beast, smashing the dems liberal tent, etc. that a Dem president will have very little policy room (because of purposeful debt) to regulate and put great liberal democratic policies into place. I am very concerned that corporate elites do not get to become embedded rogues who dominate the U.S. government and agenda for the next 50 years. So I care very, very much that the neocons get booted out of power asap.

Plus i am Canadian. So naturally this is not as personal a fight for me as it is for you.

[Mythsaje]

26. I have no problems with corporations...

just with giving them an unfair advantage in our political system. It's equally important that they have the ability to market their goods as it is that their workers are fairly compensated and given adequate healthcare.

The problem is that the DLC is MORE beholden to special interests than the voter. Members of Congress make deals that benefit their particular corporate sponsors BEFORE considering the impact on the common constituent. It's not about what benefits America as a whole, or the people as a whole, but what benefits what corporate sponsor.

And THAT bugs me.

[applegrove]

27. I agree that bugs me too.

[evlbstrd]

43. The legal status that corporations enjoy in our tax code

must be rescinded. Corrporations are considered "individuals." Yet they enjoy more influence on our government than real individuals. That must be revoked.
The U.S. should, first and foremost, make voting much easier than it is now.
I would propose a three day weekend of polling, make it a truly patriotic holiday. Voting on Tuesdays almost automatically curtails voter turnout. Coupled with secure and truly verifiable balloting and public financing of campaigns, such a progressive candidate would actually stand a chance. From there, it would be possible to build support the curtailment of corporate power and influence over politics.

"And there should be a way to stop the monsters who rule the odd country - by using the UN, and on rare occasions wars over human rights..that is high tech in origin and does not involve blood."

Sorry. War always involves blood.

[applegrove]

78. Sorry - I meant sanctions and the like. With people more integrated

technologywise..we should be able to use soft power more often. Soft power of all kinds.

Why I want the nuts out of the WH asap. And I'll vote for a duck if I have to...except I am Canadian?

[SeanQ]

29. I suspect a large portion of the pro-DLC moderates are

assuming the the DLC speaks for them. The DLC certainly likes to claim they represent moderate Democrats. Personally I think that is a crock!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2034958

I think the debate between liberal and moderate or centrist Democrats is a straw man. It's the liberals job to keep poking the moderates so they don't get distracted and stay honest and within our parties proud traditions. It's the moderates job to help bridge our gaps and negotiate workable compromises that don't betray our values.

There are portions of the DLC that have never been truly democratic. They are vipers in our midst that seem to want to keep honest centrist Dems sheep and try to marginalize the rest of us. JHMO

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Solution to DLC problem. Don't support or vote for their candidates.

Perhaps then, they will return to their natural home as Republicans.

[tlsmith1963]

38. Better Yet...

...maybe we should just leave & form a different party, one that fights for average working people. It is *desperately* needed.

Tammy

[evilqueen]

46. Why leave our party? Make them leave instead.

DLC is not the majority of the Democratic Party, they don't represent all Democrats. If they refuse to support the issues and stances that the majority of Democrats support, then we can just consider them irrelevant. If all we are presented with are DLC candidates in our primaries, then I'll be voting for a third party.

[tlsmith1963]

34. I'm the Same Way

I really don't think of myself as some far-Left fringe person, & yet I don't like the DLC at all. I guess I'm an economic populist, because the economy is a big issue with me. I hate to see the middle class disappearing (& I have been paying attention to what is happening around me. It *is* shrinking. I see evidence of it all the time). I think the middle class is always what made us better than other countries. It gave poor people hope that they could better themselves. When there is no more middle class, how can a poor person ever have hope anymore? So I hate what the DLC represents. The Democratic Party needs to go back to being a party of economic populists. So many people are being hurt by this mean-spirited economy, & they need someone to fight for them.

Tammy

[Mythsaje]

35. Exactly right...

Eliminating the middle class is bad business...so why are they doing it?

[Mich Otter]

42. We need Health Care for all Americans

I believe that we need health care even more than education.
The kids are not going to learn if they are not healthy. Already the kids are over weight and sent to school on drugs to try to help them to function. They need a proper diet in a healthy environment to function well.
The adults are not going to be as productive at work if they are not healthy.
The seniors are not being treated as worthy human beings if they don't have health care.
The capitalist system works best when funneling the bulk of the wealth and benefits to some and away from others. Our system has proven over the past two centuries that there is no way it will work for all Americans.
It will take a serious change in how Americans view themselves and how they value each other to get the changes we need.
Socialism does function with capitalism. The capitalists make the money, and the socialists tax them to take care of the social needs of everyone.
We need health care, education, jobs, pensions and housing that are guaranteed to all Americans, not just those lucky enough to be privileged. The only way to secure these basic human rights is through legislation.

[Mythsaje]

53. Except

you have to deal with the people who consider this little more than theft. Forced redistribution of wealth tends to create a backlash like we're experiencing right now. There is an argument that too much of it damages innovation because success has less value if you lose as much as you gain by achieving it. Thus, it penalizes the successful and rewards those who aren't, and motivation to seek new sources of revenue diminishes because there is less to gain.

I don't completely agree with this, but I can see their point.

Socialism works on a small scale because everyone participating agrees on it. On a large scale the power tends to collect in a very few because someone needs to implement it...

Now I believe healthcare is vital, but I also believe that we'll never achieve any real consensus in this country on the subject unless we have an educated populace that understands the issues and can evaluate them critically.

[cascadiance]

59. ... Except!

Those making the decisions of the top of these companies are also a part of the "forced redistribution" of wealth too. They've given themselves all the extra cash in these companies after conducting massive layoffs and salary cuts for mainstream employees, and sit on each others boards, and through various rules, etc. have controlling votes in most cases of the shareholders too. When they buy off congress critters and get back corporate welfare which they use to feed themselves more, that is more "forced redistrubition" towards themselves.

When you compare the average salaries of execs vs. workers being only 40-1 ratio in 1980 and order of magnitude higher in the last few years of around 400-1 instead, what does that tell you? Are market forces controlling that ratio? If so, which is it? Are the average employees of 20 years ago collectively 10 times better than they are now (which many measure in our workforce here to be the most productive in the world), or are the execs of 20 years ago collectively 10 times worse than those of today. I would argue that neither is the case. I would argue that these ratios are due to the "forced redistribution" of wealth they've engaged in over the last 20 years or so that have rewarded themselves ARTIFICIALLy moreso and not due to true market forces. They want us to "compete globally" for our wage structure, but not themselves. Note that foreign CEO's are also paid substantially less than ours too.

No, it's about time that we have a new "New Deal", which looks to correct some of these forced redistrubutions over the last two decades through legislation. That is what I want to see a NON-DLC Democratic Party do shortly after they retake congress and the white house.

[Mythsaje]

61. I absolutely agree here too...

when a CEO makes 1000 times or better the wage of the lowest-paid employee, this becomes an unsustainable, unstable pyramid. It's simply not right. Those at the top make the money off the labor of those at the bottom and refuse to redistribute it fairly.

I concur completely. I'm just not sure forced redistribution by government fiat is the way to go. Collective bargaining...well, that would be good, if we could keep corruption from seeping into the bargaining effort from both sides.

[cascadiance]

67. Over time for the long haul, I might agree with you too...

I think over the long haul it would be a good thing to have a sustainable equation that maintains the ability for everyone to have a living wage in society, even those that produce more, etc. get rewarded more. But everything is relative. To say one segment has their money "forced redistributed" implies that there is no controversy on how they got their money to start with, which I contend there IS a controversy as to how they've obtained it, especially over the last 20 years of an increasingly corporate corrupted government.

I would advocate some degree of "forced redistribution" as a temporary measure to correct for the coporate "forced redistribution" over the last 20 years that has created the biggest divide since before the last depression. FDR recognized he needed to do something radical, and I think we need to do the same now. After this correction is in place, I don't recommend that we continue to penalize those at the top. Much like JFK did when he pulled back the top marginal income tax rates from the 90 percentile in the 60's to a more reasonable rate of 70%+ then. It will take some tweaking, but the wealthy have been sitting on an artifiical gravy train for the last 20 years. That needs some correction. I think we've reached a point where there's going to be enough sentiment in the population to support this correction too.

[Mythsaje]

68. I LIKE that idea...

as long as it was not only presented as a temporary measure, but enforced as one as well.

[Mich Otter]

84. "Collective bargaining...well"

Collective bargaining does not work with unregulated capitalism.
The wealthy simply declare war on their workers and hire new people. The wealthy have always hired their goons and militias to fight the workers. The wealthy will always do so when they are allowed by the government.
It takes legislation and government intervention, with the police and lawyers, to allow collective bargaining to work.

[Mich Otter]

85. "forced redistribution"

By the way, how was it that so much of the wealth in this country got into the hands it is in now. Who was it that got the rights to the oil and minerals in the ground? Who got the rights to valuable lands? A great deal of it was through corruption and theft. Why shouldn't we seek to correct that legacy?

[Mich Otter]

83. "Forced redistribution of wealth"

We have that now with our taxes being used; to support corporations, to buy military hardware beyond what we need to protect ourselves, to keep some 130 military bases in about 70 other countries, to shore up business friendly dictators around the world, etc..
You think Socialism only works on a small scale? Does Social Security, public education, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and Medicare only work on a small scale? These are all Socialist ideas that work best when they are there for all Americans.
How is it that the Europeans have found so many ways to take care of their citizens while so many Americans are left to live in poverty?
How is it that the Canadians can see how our system works but they choose to keep their National Health care system every time they have an election? There are candidates in Canada who would return their health care to a "For-Profit System" in a heart beat. The people of Canada are not supporting those candidates.
You're right about the connection between Health care and education. We need both, I just think the health care is more vital and should come first.

[yurbud]

56. I agree--moderation & flexibility are great, being owned aint

The DLC would never demand more of corporate America than a minor inconvenience.

[sunnystarr]

80. When I first came to DU I considered myself a moderate

with conservative leanings. After reading issues that have come up on here for the past year, I realized I wasn't just liberal but progressive on the majority of the issues. I'm with you on the gun issue since I came from a hunting family and responsible gun ownership is better than irresponsible illegal ownership. Although if I had my way I'd probably be happier if handguns were only available for the professionals that need them.

I'm also totally opposed to third trimester abortions.

It's incredible how much you learn about yourself when you take the time to get informed.

[eridani]

82. If at 8 months your baby was dying in your womb--

--and might very well take your life or your subsequent fertility along with it, you'd change your mind about 3rd trimester abortions in a big hurry.

Normally I oppose 3rd trimester abortions, just like I normally would oppose having my throat slit. However, if my airway was totally blocked, I'd be very grateful to the doctor who performed a quick tracheotomy.