dabnostrum

dabnotu:

Funcionarios de policía han golpeado con sus porras y disparado pelotas de goma contra personas que se manifestaban pacíficamente. ¡Actúa!
Funcionarios de policía han golpeado reiteradamente con porras a personas que se manifestaban de manera pacífica en protesta de los recortes en el contexto de crisis económica, incluso en cabeza y cuello, causándoles graves lesiones. Amnistía Internacional denuncia que en varios países de la Unión Europea, concretamente en España, Grecia y Rumanía, algunas personas han sufrido heridas provocadas por armas de fuego, o por otro tipo de material antidisturbios como pelotas de goma o gases lacrimógenos. El uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de los miembros de la policía no ha sido investigado ni castigado por las distintas autoridades responsables.Amnistía Internacional denuncia el uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de los funcionarios de policía, así como la utilización de las denominadas armas “menos letales” o material antidisturbios. También preocupa la falta de investigaciones efectivas. En muchos casos las denuncias de estos abusos son archivadas sin apenas investigación, y en otros casos ni siquiera se ha realizado. Ante la falta de rendición de cuentas de la policía, cabe la posibilidad de que se sigan cometiendo abusos.En España, varios testimonios recogidos por la organización durante estos dos últimos años, imágenes distribuidas por distintas redes sociales, e información recogida en los medios de comunicación sobre las operaciones policiales en distintas manifestaciones, han mostrado un uso de la fuerza excesivo por parte de los policías, así como la utilización de material antidisturbios, contra manifestantes que ejercían su derecho de forma pacífica, contraviniendo estándares internacionales de derechos humanos.Tras la actuación policial del pasado 25 de septiembre en las inmediaciones del Congreso de los Diputados, Amnistía Internacional se ha dirigido al Ministerio de Interior mostrando preocupación por la actuación de los agentes antidisturbios dentro de la estación de cercanías de Atocha y contra manifestantes pacíficos. Pide al Ministro de Interior que se realice una investigación imparcial y exhaustiva sobre estos hechos. También que investigue y adopte medidas en relación a las denuncias relativas a que los policías uniformados no iban correctamente identificados a pesar de la obligatoriedad para ello.

(via España: ¡No golpeen a manifestantes!: Amnistía Internacional España - Derechos Humanos)

dabnotu:

Funcionarios de policía han golpeado con sus porras y disparado pelotas de goma contra personas que se manifestaban pacíficamente. ¡Actúa!

Funcionarios de policía han golpeado reiteradamente con porras a personas que se manifestaban de manera pacífica en protesta de los recortes en el contexto de crisis económica, incluso en cabeza y cuello, causándoles graves lesiones. Amnistía Internacional denuncia que en varios países de la Unión Europea, concretamente en España, Grecia y Rumanía, algunas personas han sufrido heridas provocadas por armas de fuego, o por otro tipo de material antidisturbios como pelotas de goma o gases lacrimógenos. El uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de los miembros de la policía no ha sido investigado ni castigado por las distintas autoridades responsables.

Amnistía Internacional denuncia el uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de los funcionarios de policía, así como la utilización de las denominadas armas “menos letales” o material antidisturbios. También preocupa la falta de investigaciones efectivas. En muchos casos las denuncias de estos abusos son archivadas sin apenas investigación, y en otros casos ni siquiera se ha realizado. Ante la falta de rendición de cuentas de la policía, cabe la posibilidad de que se sigan cometiendo abusos.

En España, varios testimonios recogidos por la organización durante estos dos últimos años, imágenes distribuidas por distintas redes sociales, e información recogida en los medios de comunicación sobre las operaciones policiales en distintas manifestaciones, han mostrado un uso de la fuerza excesivo por parte de los policías, así como la utilización de material antidisturbios, contra manifestantes que ejercían su derecho de forma pacífica, contraviniendo estándares internacionales de derechos humanos.

Tras la actuación policial del pasado 25 de septiembre en las inmediaciones del Congreso de los Diputados, Amnistía Internacional se ha dirigido al Ministerio de Interior mostrando preocupación por la actuación de los agentes antidisturbios dentro de la estación de cercanías de Atocha y contra manifestantes pacíficos.

Pide al Ministro de Interior que se realice una investigación imparcial y exhaustiva sobre estos hechos. También que investigue y adopte medidas en relación a las denuncias relativas a que los policías uniformados no iban correctamente identificados a pesar de la obligatoriedad para ello.

(via España: ¡No golpeen a manifestantes!: Amnistía Internacional España - Derechos Humanos)

dabnotu:

The November election is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is a battle between the corporate state and us. And if we do not immediately engage in this battle we are finished, as climate scientists have made clear. I will defy corporate power in small and large ways. I will invest my energy now solely in acts of resistance, in civil disobedience and in defiance. Those who rebel are our only hope. And for this reason I will vote next month for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, although I could as easily vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. I will step outside the system. Voting for the “lesser evil”—or failing to vote at all—is part of the corporate agenda to crush what is left of our anemic democracy. And those who continue to participate in the vaudeville of a two-party process, who refuse to confront in every way possible the structures of corporate power, assure our mutual destruction.

(via Chris Hedges: Why I’m Voting Green - Chris Hedges’ Columns - Truthdig)

dabnotu:

The November election is not a battle between Republicans and Democrats. It is not a battle between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It is a battle between the corporate state and us. And if we do not immediately engage in this battle we are finished, as climate scientists have made clear. I will defy corporate power in small and large ways. I will invest my energy now solely in acts of resistance, in civil disobedience and in defiance. Those who rebel are our only hope. And for this reason I will vote next month for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, although I could as easily vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. I will step outside the system. Voting for the “lesser evil”—or failing to vote at all—is part of the corporate agenda to crush what is left of our anemic democracy. And those who continue to participate in the vaudeville of a two-party process, who refuse to confront in every way possible the structures of corporate power, assure our mutual destruction.

(via Chris Hedges: Why I’m Voting Green - Chris Hedges’ Columns - Truthdig)

Tell Iowa Governor Terry Branstad: Respect the Supreme Court →

dabnotu:

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad’s recent actions show a lack of respect for the Supreme Court and our United States Constitution. While the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama ruled juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life in prison, Terry Branstad is committed to keeping these young offenders in prison for the rest of their lives by making these offenders eligible after 60 years. Tell Terry Branstad to respect the Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution, and change this ruling now!

Juvenile offenders who have been serving most of their lives in prison already will now not be released until they are senior citizens. We can all understand how a young mind can be influenced by their surroundings and lack of role models. We were all capable of making these mistakes and improving from them. This judgment lacks that understanding. Terry Branstad’s actions are an affront to the Supreme Court ruling and is unfair punishment to these offenders.

Terry Branstad should take the Supreme Court seriously. We cannot live in a political atmosphere where the Supreme Court’s ruling is ignored. The integrity of our politicians to the Constitution is vital in our understanding of the government’s limits. Terry Branstad’s actions contradict the Supreme Court and open a  slippery slope of unregulated rule.

Tell Terry Branstad to respect our Constitution and Supreme Court; change this ruling! 


dabnotu:

So if you haven’t heard, Malala is this amazing, insanely brave, 14 year old girl who’s been campaigning for girls’ education in Pakistan, and blogging for the BBC. The Taliban drove up to her school two weeks ago and shot her in the head, with two of her friends. She’s still alive, thank god. We’re probably all thinking the same thing — how do we honour this incredible girl? Her dream was for all girls in Pakistan to attend school — let’s help her achieve it.There’s actually a pretty good expert plan for how to do that. UK’s former PM Gordon Brown is the new UN Envoy for Education, and is meeting Pakistani President Zardari in a few days. He says a million signatures on a petition will really help him get the media swell we need to persuade Zardari. So let’s do it, and have a pretty amazing present ready for Malala when she gets out of hospital! Sign and share this page to get us to a million!

(via Avaaz - Malala’s hope)

dabnotu:

So if you haven’t heard, Malala is this amazing, insanely brave, 14 year old girl who’s been campaigning for girls’ education in Pakistan, and blogging for the BBC. The Taliban drove up to her school two weeks ago and shot her in the head, with two of her friends. She’s still alive, thank god.

We’re probably all thinking the same thing — how do we honour this incredible girl? Her dream was for all girls in Pakistan to attend school — let’s help her achieve it.

There’s actually a pretty good expert plan for how to do that. UK’s former PM Gordon Brown is the new UN Envoy for Education, and is meeting Pakistani President Zardari in a few days. He says a million signatures on a petition will really help him get the media swell we need to persuade Zardari. So let’s do it, and have a pretty amazing present ready for Malala when she gets out of hospital! Sign and share this page to get us to a million!

(via Avaaz - Malala’s hope)

dabnotu:

American democracy is under assault.
In one super-PAC alone, Karl Rove and the Enron grifter Ed Gillespie, have assembled $200 million from big polluters and Wall Street moguls to buy the 2012 election.
Two of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, pledged $130 million to elect candidates who favor unrestrained corporate profiteering.
The senators and congressmen they fund and elect are not representing the United States-they are representing Koch and its oil industry cronies, Big Pharma, and the Wall Street banksters currently mounting a hostile takeover of our government.
I have no problem characterizing these corporate-centric super-PACs as treasonous.  We are now in a free fall toward old-fashioned oligarchy; noxious, thieving and tyrannical.

via A Hostile Takeover of Our Country by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., EcoWatch

dabnotu:

American democracy is under assault.

In one super-PAC alone, Karl Rove and the Enron grifter Ed Gillespie, have assembled $200 million from big polluters and Wall Street moguls to buy the 2012 election.

Two of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David, pledged $130 million to elect candidates who favor unrestrained corporate profiteering.

The senators and congressmen they fund and elect are not representing the United States-they are representing Koch and its oil industry cronies, Big Pharma, and the Wall Street banksters currently mounting a hostile takeover of our government.

I have no problem characterizing these corporate-centric super-PACs as treasonous. We are now in a free fall toward old-fashioned oligarchy; noxious, thieving and tyrannical. via A Hostile Takeover of Our Country by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., EcoWatch


dabnotu:

Could a voting machine company with deep financial ties to the Romney family help Republicans steal the presidential election in Ohio?
It could happen. If this year’s presidential election comes down to the electoral votes in Ohio, the deciding votes could be cast on electronic voting machines manufactured by Hart Intercivic.
Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines.
A 2007 study conducted by Ohio’s Secretary of State showed that Hart Intercivic’s touch screen voting machines could be easily corrupted. The New York Times reported: 
At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.1
Hart Intercivic is majority owned by H.I.G. Capital which controls two of the five seats on the Hart Intercivic board.  An investment fund with deep ties to the Romney family and the Mitt Romney for president campaign, H.I.G. Capital was founded by Tony Tamer, a major bundler for the Romney campaign, and it is one of the largest partners of Solamere Capital, an investment fund founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Mitt Romney’s chief fundraiser from the 2008 presidential campaign.2 This makes the Romney family part owner of the voting machine company, through it’s interest in H.I.G. Capital.
Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines.
What’s more, three other H.I.G. Capital directors are major fundraisers for the Romney campaign, and H.I.G. Capital is the 11th largest contributor to the Mitt Romney campaign.3 Two of the company’s directors, Douglas Berman and Brian Schwartz, were even in attendance at the Boca Raton fundraiser4  where Romney infamously declared: 
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.5
And as if the ties between Tagg Romney’s Solamere, Romney contributors at H.I.G. Capital, and Hart Intercivic weren’t astonishing enough, two members of Hart Intercivic’s 5-member board of directors made direct contributions to the Romney campaign. That’s right. Directors of the company that makes touchscreen voting machines that could decide the presidential election in Ohio, have made contributions to the Mitt Romney for President campaign. 
It is disturbing and dangerous that Hart Intercivic, the company that makes the machines that will count many of the votes in Ohio on election night has deep financial ties to family members of Mitt Romney. And that its leadership has been actively involved presidential campaign by donating and bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mitt Romney. The fact that these machines are easily corruptible touch screen voting machines makes matters even worse.  
Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a tight election race which could very well be decided by Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. We must take action now.
Thank you for all you do to protect the integrity of our Democracy.

1. Bob Driehaus, “Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed,” New York Times, December 15, 2007. 
2. Rick Ungar, “Romney Family Investment Ties To Voting Machine Company That Could Decide The Election Causing Concern,” Forbes, October 20, 2012.
3. “Mitt Romney (R) Top Contributors.” Open Secrets, October 1, 2012.
4. Dave Gilson, Who Was at Romney’s “47 Percent” Fundraiser?, Mother Jones, Sept. 18, 2012.
5. MoJo News Team, “Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video,” Mother Jones, September 19, 2012.

(via Voting machines tied to the Romneys could decide the election in Ohio)

dabnotu:

Could a voting machine company with deep financial ties to the Romney family help Republicans steal the presidential election in Ohio?

It could happen. If this year’s presidential election comes down to the electoral votes in Ohio, the deciding votes could be cast on electronic voting machines manufactured by Hart Intercivic.

Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines.

A 2007 study conducted by Ohio’s Secretary of State showed that Hart Intercivic’s touch screen voting machines could be easily corrupted. The New York Times reported:

At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.1

Hart Intercivic is majority owned by H.I.G. Capital which controls two of the five seats on the Hart Intercivic board. An investment fund with deep ties to the Romney family and the Mitt Romney for president campaign, H.I.G. Capital was founded by Tony Tamer, a major bundler for the Romney campaign, and it is one of the largest partners of Solamere Capital, an investment fund founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Mitt Romney’s chief fundraiser from the 2008 presidential campaign.2 This makes the Romney family part owner of the voting machine company, through it’s interest in H.I.G. Capital.

Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines.

What’s more, three other H.I.G. Capital directors are major fundraisers for the Romney campaign, and H.I.G. Capital is the 11th largest contributor to the Mitt Romney campaign.3 Two of the company’s directors, Douglas Berman and Brian Schwartz, were even in attendance at the Boca Raton fundraiser4 where Romney infamously declared:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.5

And as if the ties between Tagg Romney’s Solamere, Romney contributors at H.I.G. Capital, and Hart Intercivic weren’t astonishing enough, two members of Hart Intercivic’s 5-member board of directors made direct contributions to the Romney campaign. That’s right. Directors of the company that makes touchscreen voting machines that could decide the presidential election in Ohio, have made contributions to the Mitt Romney for President campaign.

It is disturbing and dangerous that Hart Intercivic, the company that makes the machines that will count many of the votes in Ohio on election night has deep financial ties to family members of Mitt Romney. And that its leadership has been actively involved presidential campaign by donating and bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mitt Romney. The fact that these machines are easily corruptible touch screen voting machines makes matters even worse.

Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a tight election race which could very well be decided by Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. We must take action now.

Thank you for all you do to protect the integrity of our Democracy.

1. Bob Driehaus, “Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed,” New York Times, December 15, 2007.
2. Rick Ungar, “Romney Family Investment Ties To Voting Machine Company That Could Decide The Election Causing Concern,” Forbes, October 20, 2012.
3. “Mitt Romney (R) Top Contributors.” Open Secrets, October 1, 2012.
4. Dave Gilson, Who Was at Romney’s “47 Percent” Fundraiser?, Mother Jones, Sept. 18, 2012.
5. MoJo News Team, “Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video,” Mother Jones, September 19, 2012.

(via Voting machines tied to the Romneys could decide the election in Ohio)

dabnotu:

Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW!
The deplorable actions Murdoch has taken to run his News Corp. empire prove we can’t trust him to act in the public interest. Now, a study by Farleigh Dickinson University shows Fox News can’t even claim to inform its audience: its viewers are less informed than those who avoid news outlets altogether!
It’s the Federal Communications Commission’s job to consider the character of a media owner when dealing out broadcast licenses, and to label programs as news only when they actually inform viewers. The Murdoch Mafia has failed on both counts, and we have a chance to take them down for good. Save the airwaves from bigotry and corruption: tell the FCC to enforce the law NOW!
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Rupert Murdoch has failed every “character” test available, and the programs under his broadcasting licenses have both been implicated in scandal and have been proven to make audiences less informed, not more. We urge you to revoke Murdoch’s broadcasting licenses immediately, and to take a stand against his corrupt media empire.

(via Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!)

Photo by DonkeyHotey @Flickr.

dabnotu:

Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW!

The deplorable actions Murdoch has taken to run his News Corp. empire prove we can’t trust him to act in the public interest. Now, a study by Farleigh Dickinson University shows Fox News can’t even claim to inform its audience: its viewers are less informed than those who avoid news outlets altogether!

It’s the Federal Communications Commission’s job to consider the character of a media owner when dealing out broadcast licenses, and to label programs as news only when they actually inform viewers. The Murdoch Mafia has failed on both counts, and we have a chance to take them down for good. Save the airwaves from bigotry and corruption: tell the FCC to enforce the law NOW!

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: Rupert Murdoch has failed every “character” test available, and the programs under his broadcasting licenses have both been implicated in scandal and have been proven to make audiences less informed, not more. We urge you to revoke Murdoch’s broadcasting licenses immediately, and to take a stand against his corrupt media empire.

(via Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!) Photo by DonkeyHotey @Flickr.

dabnotu:

As the East Coast and parts of Ohio struggled to regroup in the devastating wake of “Superstorm” Sandy, the Romney campaign hastily transformed a scheduled victory rally in Dayton, Ohio into a non-political “storm relief event” on Tuesday. According to BuzzFeed, the campaign encouraged supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies and “deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman.” 
Just to be safe, campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand over supplies and meet Romney. But according to BuzzFeed, this donation process was also staged:
Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What if we dropped off our donations up front?”
The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. “Just grab something,” he said.
Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their “donations” to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest “Thank you.”

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said they were grateful for the supplies but encouraged people to donate money or blood as a more efficient way to help the relief effort.

(via Romney Campaign Staged Donations At Storm Relief Event | ThinkProgress)

er. pitiful, as an adjective, comes to mind. urgh, as a commentary, also. View Larger

dabnotu:

As the East Coast and parts of Ohio struggled to regroup in the devastating wake of “Superstorm” Sandy, the Romney campaign hastily transformed a scheduled victory rally in Dayton, Ohio into a non-political “storm relief event” on Tuesday. According to BuzzFeed, the campaign encouraged supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies and “deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman.”

Just to be safe, campaign aides reportedly spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart on supplies that could be put on display. When supporters arrived at the rally-turned-relief event, they were treated to the 10-minute video about Romney’s life, which was first unveiled at the RNC. The event ended with supporters lined up to hand over supplies and meet Romney. But according to BuzzFeed, this donation process was also staged:

Empty-handed supporters pled for entrance, with one woman asking, “What if we dropped off our donations up front?”

The volunteer gestured toward a pile of groceries conveniently stacked near the candidate. “Just grab something,” he said.

Two teenage boys retrieved a jar of peanut butter each, and got in line. When it was their turn, they handed their “donations” to Romney. He took them, smiled, and offered an earnest “Thank you.”

The Red Cross, meanwhile, said they were grateful for the supplies but encouraged people to donate money or blood as a more efficient way to help the relief effort.

(via Romney Campaign Staged Donations At Storm Relief Event | ThinkProgress)

er. pitiful, as an adjective, comes to mind. urgh, as a commentary, also.


dabnotu:

This has been a presidential campaign of percentages: the 1 percent, the 99 percent and, more recently, the 47 percent. Here is a column for the 4 percent: those who still haven’t decided. As a philosopher, I don’t propose to tell you who to vote for, but to offer a rational framework for making a decision. Also, I’m assuming that your indecision isn’t because of ignorance of the candidates and their views. You’ve been following the campaign, have an adequate knowledge of the candidates’ records and views, but still haven’t been able to make up your mind.  So how can you decide?A first suggestion is to avoid the fallacy of the most recent information.  You already know a great deal, pro and con, about Obama and Romney, and it hasn’t led you to a decision.  How could a few further facts — a last-minute gaffe, a change in the unemployment rate, a new attack ad — make a decisive difference?  Don’t privilege the tiny sliver of data that comes in during the next few days over the substantial body of information you’ve accumulated over months and even years. If this is right, then you can’t make your decision through an assessment of the candidates’ competence in governing.  If their past records and actions over the long campaign haven’t convinced you that one will be more competent, deciding the question from what happens between now and the election will commit the fallacy of the most recent information.Similarly, there’s no reason to think that you will learn of some further detail or nuance of Obama’s or Romney’s policy positions that will make all the difference. You know what their positions are. The question is which to prefer.  Answering this question requires a view of what is at stake in this election. Since foreign policy is on the back burner for most voters, I’ll focus on domestic policy.Mitt Romney has recently been insisting that the choice in this election is between the Status Quo (Obama) and a Big Change (Romney). Democrats like Paul Krugman might well agree, since they think the choice is either to preserve or to reject the New Deal. I think we can combine these two analyses in a way that avoids the partisan presuppositions of each and provides a helpful framework for deciding how to vote.There is a sense in which the New Deal is the issue in this election. In response to the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt introduced the New Deal as a system of governmental activism to achieve social and economic goods. After the Second World War this system gained wide acceptance. Even Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon initiated programs (the federal highway system, the Environmental Protection Agency) in the spirit of the New Deal.Beginning in the 1960s, Democrats extended the original New Deal’s social commitments to issues of civil and personal rights for women and various minorities. Many Republicans had little sympathy for this “expanded” New Deal. Further, with Ronald Reagan, many Republicans began to oppose not only the expanded New Deal but also the original New Deal’s approach of solving social and economic problems through government spending and regulation. The striking success of the Tea Party in the 2010 Congressional elections established this opposition as Republican orthodoxy.
Many Democrats see the current Republican Party as committed to “dismantling” the New Deal. Logically, however, Republicans can claim that their program does not renounce the New Deal’s goals of prosperity, security and even equal rights for all citizens. Rather, they can contend, they intend to achieve these goals in a fundamentally different way: through the private sphere rather than government action. Democrats may well argue that this new approach won’t work, so that the practical effect will be simply to abandon the New Deal.  But whether this is so is an empirical question on which a logical analysis of our political choices must remain neutral.We can, therefore, following Romney, see this election as a choice between the status quo and fundamental change. But the status quo is not, as Romney suggests, merely the policies of the Obama administration. A vote for Obama endorses what has been the governing structure of our society since the New Deal: a free-market system balanced with government regulations, tax-funded social programs and legislative and judicial guarantees of civil rights — all to protect citizens from the excesses of the private sphere.The current Republican Party is committed to replacing this structure with one that seriously reduces the role of government. The idea is to rely primarily on the private sphere to regulate itself and to solve social problems through increased production and wealth. Although a President Romney might resist his party’s base, there is a good chance that, willingly or not, he would mostly follow the official party commitments. Therefore, a vote for Romney may well be a vote for a major change in the longstanding role of government in our society.   This is the new American revolution urged by the Tea Party.Thinking in terms of the above framework reverses the standard polarity of the two parties. Those who are conservative in the traditional sense of resisting abrupt major changes in established institutions should vote for Obama. Those who support a fundamental change should vote for Romney.  Oddly enough, Obama’s hopes for a second term may turn on the support of conservative voters.

(via Who Should You Vote For? - NYTimes.com)

fair enough, but there are other parties beyond the hegemonic two major “political” parties, right? e.g. green party? hmph.

dabnotu:

This has been a presidential campaign of percentages: the 1 percent, the 99 percent and, more recently, the 47 percent. Here is a column for the 4 percent: those who still haven’t decided. As a philosopher, I don’t propose to tell you who to vote for, but to offer a rational framework for making a decision. Also, I’m assuming that your indecision isn’t because of ignorance of the candidates and their views. You’ve been following the campaign, have an adequate knowledge of the candidates’ records and views, but still haven’t been able to make up your mind.  So how can you decide?

A first suggestion is to avoid the fallacy of the most recent information.  You already know a great deal, pro and con, about Obama and Romney, and it hasn’t led you to a decision.  How could a few further facts — a last-minute gaffe, a change in the unemployment rate, a new attack ad — make a decisive difference?  Don’t privilege the tiny sliver of data that comes in during the next few days over the substantial body of information you’ve accumulated over months and even years.

If this is right, then you can’t make your decision through an assessment of the candidates’ competence in governing.  If their past records and actions over the long campaign haven’t convinced you that one will be more competent, deciding the question from what happens between now and the election will commit the fallacy of the most recent information.

Similarly, there’s no reason to think that you will learn of some further detail or nuance of Obama’s or Romney’s policy positions that will make all the difference. You know what their positions are. The question is which to prefer.  Answering this question requires a view of what is at stake in this election. Since foreign policy is on the back burner for most voters, I’ll focus on domestic policy.

Mitt Romney has recently been insisting that the choice in this election is between the Status Quo (Obama) and a Big Change (Romney). Democrats like Paul Krugman might well agree, since they think the choice is either to preserve or to reject the New Deal. I think we can combine these two analyses in a way that avoids the partisan presuppositions of each and provides a helpful framework for deciding how to vote.

There is a sense in which the New Deal is the issue in this election. In response to the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt introduced the New Deal as a system of governmental activism to achieve social and economic goods. After the Second World War this system gained wide acceptance. Even Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon initiated programs (the federal highway system, the Environmental Protection Agency) in the spirit of the New Deal.

Beginning in the 1960s, Democrats extended the original New Deal’s social commitments to issues of civil and personal rights for women and various minorities. Many Republicans had little sympathy for this “expanded” New Deal. Further, with Ronald Reagan, many Republicans began to oppose not only the expanded New Deal but also the original New Deal’s approach of solving social and economic problems through government spending and regulation. The striking success of the Tea Party in the 2010 Congressional elections established this opposition as Republican orthodoxy.

Many Democrats see the current Republican Party as committed to “dismantling” the New Deal. Logically, however, Republicans can claim that their program does not renounce the New Deal’s goals of prosperity, security and even equal rights for all citizens. Rather, they can contend, they intend to achieve these goals in a fundamentally different way: through the private sphere rather than government action. Democrats may well argue that this new approach won’t work, so that the practical effect will be simply to abandon the New Deal.  But whether this is so is an empirical question on which a logical analysis of our political choices must remain neutral.

We can, therefore, following Romney, see this election as a choice between the status quo and fundamental change. But the status quo is not, as Romney suggests, merely the policies of the Obama administration. A vote for Obama endorses what has been the governing structure of our society since the New Deal: a free-market system balanced with government regulations, tax-funded social programs and legislative and judicial guarantees of civil rights — all to protect citizens from the excesses of the private sphere.

The current Republican Party is committed to replacing this structure with one that seriously reduces the role of government. The idea is to rely primarily on the private sphere to regulate itself and to solve social problems through increased production and wealth. Although a President Romney might resist his party’s base, there is a good chance that, willingly or not, he would mostly follow the official party commitments. Therefore, a vote for Romney may well be a vote for a major change in the longstanding role of government in our society.   This is the new American revolution urged by the Tea Party.

Thinking in terms of the above framework reverses the standard polarity of the two parties. Those who are conservative in the traditional sense of resisting abrupt major changes in established institutions should vote for Obama. Those who support a fundamental change should vote for Romney.  Oddly enough, Obama’s hopes for a second term may turn on the support of conservative voters.

(via Who Should You Vote For? - NYTimes.com)

fair enough, but there are other parties beyond the hegemonic two major “political” parties, right? e.g. green party? hmph.