"...when the predatory, monopolistic dimension of the economic system starts to gain momentum, then the question of justice and democracy has to come forward too. Not just liberty and property rights, but justice and human rights, and democracy, and the people’s rights to be free from economic tyranny and economic domination. We will not live on a national plantation run by the Koch brothers."
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court rejected "the idea that one's status depends on his parent's status." In the rare chance that the Supreme Court does strike down birthright citizenship, the result would be chaos. "The court cannot create a timeline, indicating all those born of the undocumented before a certain date are grandfathered in and all of those after are not," wrote Joe Sigg of the Arizona Republic. "So, if the court makes a change and reverses itself, the citizenship of 311 million Americans is in doubt and must be proved - this means everyone - no exceptions...All would temporarily be undocumented or illegal aliens!"Ok. Got that Senator Paul? Senator Vittor? May I just say that your ideas are
Here in Alaska, it's trickled down and reached levels wherein strangers take their cues from supposed 'leaders' and target fellow citizens with bone-chilling threats. How broken is our system of justice that allows these kinds of horrid threats to continue unchecked?"This is the crux of the debate. The leaders who use violent imagery and rhetoric do indeed have a dramatic effect on their followers. It is the folks at home who see these leaders extolling them to
...beyond the question of what the Constitution means by the "right to bear arms," we must also remember that no right is absolute. Each person's rights are constrained by the extent to which they impinge on another person's rights.
...the question is not whether Americans have the right to bear arms, but rather how that right should be limited because it conflicts with other rights.
S.K.: I guess my main point is that it's entirely possible that, as out there as it has been at times, the right's rhetoric and tactics had absolutely no direct or indirect role in what happened on Saturday. And -- for now -- I haven't seen any compelling evidence that suggests otherwise.
A.P.: Right. Well, I can't argue with that. My main point is simply that people -- even crazy, incomprehensible people -- are products of the culture. It's foolish to try to definitively prove a direct link, and as you say there's absolutely no evidence for Loughner having anything resembling conservative principles as they're generally understood, but we're all shaped by media and environment.
It would mean you would actually have the resources to do something we haven't done yet, which is get people treatment. We have been very good at emptying the hospitals. What we haven't done is to offer treatment once people are out of the hospitals. In Arizona, for instance, they closed down most of the hospital beds. They are next to last in the United States in the availability of hospital beds for the population, and they have closed down some of the outpatient clinics. If you want to get serious about mental illness, then you need to provide the resources so people can be treated.And then the tricky question is: Where do those resources come from?
This has been, for 200 years, the state's responsibility. That's why state hospitals were built. This has not been, primarily, a federal responsibility. Ultimately the states are responsible, therefore the governor's responsible, the legislature is responsible. And the Department of Mental Health should be held responsible. This is not rocket science. We know what the good programs are. Everyone has decided: It's better to save money, and we'll close down hospital beds; people who want to get help, we'll try to get them help, but we won't do much more than that. If you keep doing that, you will continue having these kinds of disasters. This is not new. If enough people become sufficiently angry, they will demand that their state government do what they should have been doing all along. Until a sufficient number of people become angry enough, it's not going to happen.
- Aren't calculated political assassination attempts by definition "political?" If so, then how can anyone argue that anyone is trying to "politicize" the Tucson shooting?
- Since the shooting, has a single conservative movement leader denounced violence-glorifying political rhetoric?
- If cultural conservatives believe violent video games and comic books are dangerous because they can foment violence, why don't those same conservatives believe violent rhetoric broadcast on TV and radio won't do the same thing?
"...an "Early Bird" movement of seniors, progressives, and working Americans should organize campaign events to demonstrate, demand answers, and hold candidates to account. They could pin Republicans as anti-Social Security. They could make Democrats do what they haven't yet done for themselves-run as champions of Social Security."
...the largest transnational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by kings. They control most of the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. Their CEOs are unapproachable and live lives of nearly unimaginable wealth and luxury.
Was the American Revolution fought so that the corporations could reign over democracy as monarchs?
