They certainly were not the only nation to practice the notion of "the
chosen people". As a matter of fact that is the hallmark of all nationalism.
We can see it in America in the notion of "manifest destiny" and in the
notion of "American exceptionalism".
Egypt, Rome, Britain and others did the same so I'm not singling out the
Israelites.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 2:20 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency
Yes, I certainly learned, from the book, what a bastard David was. He was
also, apparently, handsome and charismatic so he got away with a lot. But I
have to say that this history of the tribe of Israelites, certainly doesn't
present an endearing picture of them. Interestingly, that isn't what the
anti-semitic tales about Jews seem to include. Only now, that the State of
Issrael has become so Fascistic, are some people seeing attributes in
Israelis that seem to be similar to those of the Biblical Israelites.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 12:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency
Actuallyyou are certainly right on in many ways Miriam. And the
neo-nationalism of the old testament is in many ways the routes of
anti-semitism. Indeed, the new testament was meant to clean things up more
than a little ideologically speaking. It is a complex weave of things but
for better or worse the basics of the old testament is,ASIDE FROM ITS PURELY
RELIGIOUS OR IDEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS, simply an excuse for nationalistic
aspirations of one tribal entity against many others.
I have no delusions about that at all. They are absurd upon their face as
are other religions based upon similar precepts, of which the earth abounds
btw!
And it is all sort of weird if one wades in the weeds of the thing as well;
if one wishes to even look at Biblical issues in the old testament versus
the historical record. For example, the Philostines were really, culturally
speaking and in the notion of the times really the good guys.
They gave us our language or Phonics and were traders creating great
civilizations and spreedding knoledge. They were not the brute barbarians
represented by the Bible per se, though they did engage in practices, along
with the Hebrews by the way, that we all nowadays would deem trully barbaric
including child sacrifice to invisable gods.
Or even one god for that matter.
BTW the palestinian people werealso the Cartheginians who had running water
and flush toilets and all sorts of advances of which Rome and others
denigrated until they destroyed them and subsumed them.
Things are not so simple in this world and I don't think even this ad hoc
post nauseum post is so special except to say, there is value in history.
There is value in knoledge. There is even value in myth and poetry and
allusion and allegory, though we must also be suspect of sources of same and
of motives of it all.
This all said and historical nuances to the side I often use the
metaphorical David v Goliath as a sort of known quanity and device for
stating something profound...You know the little guy against the big bad
bully?
Here is where literal interpretation doesn't matter when getting at the
heart of the matter for David even in Biblical referances was after all
onecorrupt, viscious, and arrogent, let alone hypocritical prick. Maybey he
wasn't as big of same as the Egyptians or other great powers of the day, but
he was simply, and again according to the Old Testament itself one helluva
motherfucking prick...Quite literally too.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 11:46 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency
There's a new novel on BARD, The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks,no more.
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
money.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
no more.government and business.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
me.
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
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-next/
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 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
money.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
government and business.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
me.
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
Thank you and good night.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
