[blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency

From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:14:22 -0500

I thought by going to that link, I'd find a publisher's summary of the book.
Instead, I found an Amazon ad and a biblical quotation and a link that said
"more details", which didn't give me more details. It would be more helpful
next time if you could please just copy and paste the material from the link
into your email to us because I'm sure that some other people would have as
much or more difficulty than I did. I tried that Good Reads site at one
point and found it thoroughly confusing.

Miriam

-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 8:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency

Let me offer a recommendation of a book that is the most credible
explanation of Noah's flood that I have ever come across. It can be found on
BARD and the number is DB56673. Here is a link to its Goodreads
description: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1906454.Before_the_Flood

On 1/31/2016 7:07 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:

Now, Carl....

There are lots of historically based and factual truths in both
testaments along with exagerations

For example, though the Hebrews didn't make the walls of Jericho come
tumbling down with a horn they did conquer that ancient city as their
first foray in to the promised land. And it appears that they
slaughterred every man, woman, and child as an act of terror to send a
message to other city-states.

They weren't the only ancients to use such tactics, but they did so on
numerous occasions documented not only in the Bible but also in
archeology.

As for Noah's flood the writers of that ditty did crib liberally from
the ancient Sumerian book "Gilgamesh" which was really the first known
novel.

While the Noah flood was a myth story. There is ample arceological
evidence that there were great floods in the region. Many were
sunami's caused by volcanic activity ... That we have evedence of
basically destroying the advanced Minoan civilization in the Aegean.
There was also a "great flood" in the Black Sea region which destroyed
coastal civilizations in the archeological record.

Now, as for Jesus walking upon water, well probably not in the Sea of
Gallilee but he might have come close in the Dead Sea given the salt
content and density there...Just kidding...

I just walked upon water yesterday and that is a fact. I walked upon
our nearby pond which now, by a miracle is solidly frozen. I only do
this feat a few times each winter.

Praise the Lord..

----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:48 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency

Miriam,
I think the New Testament better reflects the world and the life at
the time of Jesus.  The old Testament is an account of Fables and
exaggeration, and Magic.  Unless we actually believe that a fellow
and his sons could build a boat big enough to hold 2 of every kind of
animal, food enough to keep them for 40 days and 40 nights along with
cabins for himself and his family.  Not to mention what kept their
stomachs full until new crops would be planted, harvested and stored.
Those poor old animals must have been worn to the nubbins, breeding
and birthing at a speed beyond belief, trying to populate the Land
again.  No, the Old Testament is a book of Fairy Tales.  Joshua blew
his horn and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.  Moses waving
his hand at the Red Sea and rushing his People through to safety,
while the Sea came back together in time to drown his pursuers.
Remember, all people on Earth held beliefs that included Angels,
Demons, Gods of all sorts, and Goddesses who tempted the Gods and
men, alike.  We understand that human imagination has peopled the
planet with witches, vampires, zombies, dragons, elves, and all sorts
of other hobgoblins.
We understand that these are creations of our over-active minds.
Unless they show up in one of our Holy Books.  And there, we are
afraid to challenge them.  Mary was knocked up by God, not Joseph.
Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the fish so it could feed
the multitude.  Jesus also raised up the dead and healed the Leper.
He also walked on water and rose up from the tomb.  Just because we
wish it could be so, does not make it so.
My dad used to say, "I'll listen to any story, so long as it doesn't
cost me."
Well, our insistence upon believing these myths and fables to be true
is costing the Human Race its very existence.

Carl Jarvis
On 1/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There's a new novel on BARD, The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks,
which is about David becoming King, his reign, and his son, Solomon,
becoming king.
Now I grew up with no religious education at all and what I know of
the bible, are the bits and pieces that I've read about, along the way.
I was
given a book of bible stories when I was a child, which I enjoyed,
like I enjoyed all stories. Anyway, I have no idea how true to the
First Testament story, this beautifully written novel is. I read it
because I think Geraldine Brooks is an excellent author. But this
story was filled with brutality, war, power plays, aggression, men's
domination of women, jealousy, envy, et ecetra. God speaks to Nathan
sometimes, telling him what will happen and making His will clear.
Reading the book was truly disheartening. First of all, nothing has
changed except that now we provide more palatable reasons for wars
and murder like, "spreading democracy", and we kill from a distance,
rather than actually thrusting a sword into our opponent and
disemboweling him. And to think that it is stories like this one
that caused the Jews to believe that they were people chosen by God
and that Christians believe that Islam is a violent religion while
Judaism and Christianity are peaceable.  I do understand that the
New Testament must have been written to try to clean things up a
bit.

Miriam

-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:30 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency

Like Shakespeare, the Holy Bible is such a part of our thinking, of
our language, that we reach back without ever realizing it, and grab
at commonly understood phrases to illustrate our point.  I suspect
that long after all memories of both Shakespeare and of Christianity
have faded to the back rooms of our memory, we will still be using
much of the quotes we use today because they are such a part of our
language.
This does not mean a person has to believe in Jesus Christ as his
personal Savior, to understand what the Scriptures are saying.  Nor
do we need to settle any disagreement over whether Shakespeare,
Marlowe, Bacon, de Vere, or Mary Sidney Herbert actually  authored
this great body of literature, to draw from the rich language.

Carl Jarvis

On 1/30/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Brilliant! And one thing I really like about Moyers is his
religious analogies even though I'm an avowed agnostic. This goes
to the utter "poetry" of the prose as ironic as this might sound.
Regardless, these allusions are a part of the ethoes; the internal
mechanisms that incite the

brain, heart, and, dare I say soul of the average American.

This is why I favor teaching the Bible and other religious texts
including the Kuran, not as dogma, or as fact, but, rather as
cultural referances just

as the teaching of Roman and Greek mythology should take place.

Of course, I do think such courses should be electives but should
be prominent in our public schools again in my opinion, and again
as a non-believer.

Aside from these comments this again is right on on the seminal
issue of transparency at a bare minimum. To use another fantastical
anology, wee Americans deserve at a minimum the right to know that
the man behind the curtain is the so-called Wizard of Oz!

We have at a minimum the absolute right to know just who is pulling
the levers.

That is democracy with a small "d".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:33 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] A Step Toward Election Transparency

Moyers writes: "Barack Obama once confessed to politics' original
sin but has yet to atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do
so. I speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics."

Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)

A Step Toward Election Transparency By Bill Moyers, Moyers &
Company
29 January 16

It's time for the president to make federal contractors disclose
their political spending.

Barack Obama once confessed to politics' original sin but has yet
to atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do so.
I speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics.
During his
2008 race for the White House, Obama opted out of the public
funding system for presidential campaigns - the first candidate of
a major party to do so since the system was created in 1976, after
the Watergate scandals. His defection chilled hopes that public
funding might enable everyday citizens to check the power of the
super rich and their super PACs, countering the influence of "dark
money" - contributions that cannot be traced to their donors.
A friend of mine, a prominent conservative Republican who
champions campaign finance reform (yes, there are some and we get
along
marvelously!) recently told me he believes Obama's decision was a
significant blow to the cause for reform. Six years ago, the
conservative majority on the Supreme Court tried to finish it off
when they ruled for Big Money - unlimited amounts of it
-
in their Citizens United decision.
In his first State of the Union in 2010, President Obama denounced
Citizens United, saying that it would reverse a century of law and
open "the floodgates for special interests." He was just as blunt
last year when he declared flatly that Citizens United was "wrong"
and had caused "real harm to our democracy." Right on all counts.
Public interest advocates Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen and
Stephen Spaulding of Common Cause recently reminded us that since
Citizens United "special interests have spent over $500 million
from secret, undisclosed sources."
Think of it as poison poured into the mainstream of democracy,
just as toxic as the lead released in Flint, Michigan's drinking

water.

Americans of every stripe know money corrodes our politics. In a
poll last year, The New York Times and CBS found that 85 percent
of us think the system for funding political campaigns should be
fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt.
President Obama knows it, too. Despite his own apostasy, he has
spoken eloquently over the years against the present system.
Unfortunately, he has done nothing about it. He's gone AWOL in our
biggest battle for democracy.
Which brings us back to his confession. During that first campaign
for president, the Boston Globe reported that "In Obama's eight
years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds
of the money he raised for his campaigns - $296,000 of $461,000 -
came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.and many other
corporate interests."
Confronted with this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Obama replied:
"I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics
and I am not sinless."
Far from sinless, he has in fact been a serial sinner. From
repeated campaigns for the state legislature, through his one
campaign for the US Senate, to his last campaign for president in
2012, money from organized interests poured into his coffers. The
finance industry, communications industry, the health industry -
they all had a piece of him, sometimes a very big piece. In his
defense, Obama said he could not "unilaterally disarm." So like
the young Augustine of Hippo, who prayed, "Lord, grant me
chastity. but not yet," Barack Obama was saying that when the time

arrived, he would sin no more.

Well, Mr. President, it's time. You have no more campaigns to wage.
With a little less than 12 months left in the White House, you
have the opportunity to atone for exploiting a system that you
have deplored in words if not deeds. You can restart the engine of
reform and even demonstrate that Citizens United can be tamed.
Just take out your pen and sign an executive order compelling
federal contractors to disclose their political spending.
In one stroke you can put an end to a blatant practice of
political bribery that would be one small step for you and one
giant leap for democracy.
It's an open-and-shut case. In fewer than five minutes, you could
face the cameras and announce your decision:
My fellow Americans. I have today signed an executive order
requiring any company with a federal contract to disclose how much
they spend on politicians and lobbyists, and who is receiving their

money.

There are several reasons for this.
First, federal contracting is big business. In 2013 alone, the
United States government spent about $460 billion dollars on
contracting, with $177 billion of that going to just 25 companies.
Since the year 2000, the top 10 contractors have raked in $1.5
trillion in federal contracts.
That's your money. All of it comes from taxpayers. And as the
economic analyst Robert Reich reminds us, you are footing the bill
twice over. You pay for these corporations to lobby for those
contracts. Then you pay for the stuff they sell us. It's only fair
that you see how much it costs for corporations to buy influence.
Second, there is a direct relationship between what a corporation
spends on campaign contributions and the amount it receives back
in government spending. Federal contractors have long been banned
from contributing to federal candidates, parties or political
committees, but that ban does not apply to their executives,
shareholders and political action committees.
In
fact, since the Citizens United decision in 2010, contractors have
been free to contribute unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to
super PACs and the shadowy operations known as "social welfare
organizations."
It's now possible for companies that get government contracts to
secretly - let me say it again, secretly - spend untold amounts to
elect and re-elect the very legislators who are awarding them
those contracts. That's wrong.
It's a terrible conflict of interest that undermines the integrity
of government.
Some of you will remember that I said the Citizens United decision
would harm democracy. I wish it were not so, but I was right; this
secrecy in influence peddling by federal contractors is a bad thing.
It wastes your money. It distorts the relationship between your

government and business.

It
works against start-up entrepreneurs who can't afford to hire
lobbyists or make political contributions while entrenched
old-line companies hire former government officials - members of
Congress and their staffs in particular - to steer business their
way. Let's put an end to these practices, once and for all.
Third, an open democracy is an honest democracy. Disclosure is the
foundation of public trust in government and business, while
secrecy invites corruption. Even the Supreme Court justice who
wrote the majority opinion for Citizens United acknowledged this to be

true.

Justice Anthony Kennedy belongs to another party than I. He
adheres to a different ideology. But listen to what he wrote:
"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of [political]
expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the
information needed to hold corporations and elected officials
accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can
determine whether their corporation's political speech advances
the corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can see
whether elected officials are 'in the pocket'
of so-called moneyed interests." I agree with Justice Kennedy.
You see, undisclosed money - "dark money" - is not "free speech"
as its proponents claim. To the contrary. It's a threat to free
speech, especially to citizens like you. Even if you believe money
is speech, don't you and every other American have a right to know
who's speaking? Secrecy weakens democracy's backbone, causing it
to become brittle - so brittle that fractures are now commonplace.
That's one reason Washington is broken and dysfunctional.
As Justice Kennedy himself - the author of the Citizens United
decision, remember - recently admitted, our system "is not working
the way it should."
The executive order I have signed today is a step toward helping
us see why it is not working and giving us a way to start fixing
it. We are casting sunshine on a system badly in need of light.
Sadly, I must report to you that Republicans in Congress are
opposed to sunshine. They prefer government do business in the
dark, out of your sight and away from the prying eyes of
reporters. But the Sunlight Foundation has discovered that over
one recent five-year period 200 of the most politically active
corporations spent a combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and
campaign contributions and, in return, got $4.4 trillion in federal

business and support.

Yes, $4.4 trillion - with a "t." That's an enormous return on
their investment in lobbyists and politicians.
Earlier this month I delivered my last State of the Union address
to you.

I
told you that, "We have to reduce the influence of money in our
politics,

so
that a handful of families or hidden interests can't bankroll our
elections.
And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can't pass
muster

in
the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution."
My record on this issue may not inspire confidence, but I offer
this executive order as an act of genuine penitence. And I pledge
to you that in my remaining months as president I intend to take
more steps to put right what I have helped to keep wrong. When I
leave this office next January there will be no private citizen in
the country more active in the fight to save our public life from
the pernicious grip of private greed.
I am not a saint; I am a sinner. But I have been born again - again.
And this time I will keep the faith. If you believe in democracy,
join

me.

Thank you and good night.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.

Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)
http://billmoyers.com/story/lets-ask-obama-to-give-this-speech-nex
t/h ttp://b
illmoyers.com/story/lets-ask-obama-to-give-this-speech-next/
A Step Toward Election Transparency By Bill Moyers, Moyers &
Company
29 January 16
It's time for the president to make federal contractors disclose
their political spending.
arack Obama once confessed to politics' original sin but has yet
to atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do so.
I speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics.
During his
2008 race for the White House, Obama opted out of the public
funding system for presidential campaigns - the first candidate of
a major party to do so since the system was created in 1976, after
the Watergate scandals. His defection chilled hopes that public
funding might enable everyday citizens to check the power of the
super rich and their super PACs, countering the influence of "dark
money" - contributions that cannot be traced to their donors.
A friend of mine, a prominent conservative Republican who
champions campaign finance reform (yes, there are some and we get
along
marvelously!) recently told me he believes Obama's decision was a
significant blow to the cause for reform. Six years ago, the
conservative majority on the Supreme Court tried to finish it off
when they ruled for Big Money - unlimited amounts of it
-
in their Citizens United decision.
In his first State of the Union in 2010, President Obama denounced
Citizens United, saying that it would reverse a century of law and
open "the floodgates for special interests." He was just as blunt
last year when he declared flatly that Citizens United was "wrong"
and had caused "real harm to our democracy." Right on all counts.
Public interest advocates Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen and
Stephen Spaulding of Common Cause recently reminded us that since
Citizens United "special interests have spent over $500 million
from secret, undisclosed sources."
Think of it as poison poured into the mainstream of democracy,
just as toxic as the lead released in Flint, Michigan's drinking