Kevin Phillips, a Republican analyst of national politics, wrote in 1990 that the Democratic Party was “history’s second most enthusiastic capitalist party.”
Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (2005 version)

3 notes

You can spend a day at Disney and have your child come away with the illusion that she drives the story, that she runs the show—the same illusion at the heart, it sometimes seems, of modern parenting, in which we foster boundless self-esteem in our kids even as we exert minute-by-minute control over their lives at a level unthinkable to parents even two generations ago.
Dan Kois, The Most Individualized Place on Earth, Slate

Yes I am one of those twenty-somethings who does not have a child who criticizes modern-parenting like no other. Sorry not sorry.

2 notes

The solution to global warming is not to fix the world, it’s to fix ourselves.
Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. Climate (2014)
The dialectical approach, while admitting the influence of nature on man, asserts that man, in turn, affects nature and creates through his changes in nature new natural conditions for his existence.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. p.60 (via fuckyeahdialectics)

38 notes

The habit of willfully erasing the climate crisis from trade agreements continues to this day: for instance, in early 2014, several negotiating documents for the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a controversial new NAFTA-style trade deal spanning twelve countries, were released to the public via WikiLeaks and the Peruvian human rights group RedGE. A draft of the environment chapter had contained language stating that countries “acknowledge climate change as a global concern that requires collective action and recognize the importance of implementation of their respective commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chane (UNFCC).” The language was vague and nonbinding, but at least it was a tool that governments could use to defend themselves should their climate policies be challenged in a trade tribunal, as Ontario’s plan was. But a later document showed that U.S. negotiators had proposed an edit: take out all the stuff about climate change and UNFCC commitments. In other words, while trade has repeatedly been allowed to trump climate, under no circumstances would climate be permitted to trump trade.
Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate (2014)

I am very well-read on climate change; in fact, there is probably not another issue that I have read as much on in the past decade. Still: this book is uniquely powerful in it’s presentation, authority, confidence, and outlook. This is a book that everybody needs to read.

2 notes

That’s why I don’t like carnivals. I like order and discipline. I like changes in everyday life, I don’t like big ecstatic moments that we then afterwards remember fondly when we return to our everyday corruption. So this is what I was missing in the UK riots. Even a minimal positive vision. To put it in an even more brutal way, if I were to be a member of some secret capitalist organization, trying to discredit the left, I would have organized and financed precisely such riots.
Slavoj Zizek asked about the 2011 U.K. riots.

I feel like I agree with this sentiment more and more.

7 notes

daughterofmulan:

humansofnewyork:

"If they raise the subway fare one more time, I’m going to explode. I’m making nine dollars an hour. I walk home three hours from work every day to save that $2.50, because that’s a half gallon of milk for me and my daughter. And every time they raise the fare, they have a ‘hearing.’ But they aren’t hearing anything. It’s a fucking joke. If you go to one of those ‘hearings,’ every single person stands up and says: ‘Don’t raise the fare.’ Then they raise it anyway. Oh man, it burns me up. ‘We need the money,’ they say, ‘America is hurting.’ That’s bullshit! If I see one more TV program bragging about multimillion dollar homes I’m gonna scream. How about a fucking TV program that shows me if there is anywhere in this city that I can fucking afford to live anymore. I’m sorry, but it’s burning me up."

Yo it’s worse in DC; it costs me $5.80 ONE-WAY to get to work, so I spend $11.60 on the train every day. I can’t even understand how people who have lived in DC their whole lives can take the metro without rioting.

daughterofmulan:

humansofnewyork:

"If they raise the subway fare one more time, I’m going to explode. I’m making nine dollars an hour. I walk home three hours from work every day to save that $2.50, because that’s a half gallon of milk for me and my daughter. And every time they raise the fare, they have a ‘hearing.’ But they aren’t hearing anything. It’s a fucking joke. If you go to one of those ‘hearings,’ every single person stands up and says: ‘Don’t raise the fare.’ Then they raise it anyway. Oh man, it burns me up. ‘We need the money,’ they say, ‘America is hurting.’ That’s bullshit! If I see one more TV program bragging about multimillion dollar homes I’m gonna scream. How about a fucking TV program that shows me if there is anywhere in this city that I can fucking afford to live anymore. I’m sorry, but it’s burning me up."

Yo it’s worse in DC; it costs me $5.80 ONE-WAY to get to work, so I spend $11.60 on the train every day. I can’t even understand how people who have lived in DC their whole lives can take the metro without rioting.

47,711 notes

thepoliticalfreakshow:

ST. LOUIS • Police may not force peaceful, law-abiding protesters to keep moving because doing so violates their First Amendment rights, a St. Louis federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry issued a preliminary injunction Monday ordering police to stop using a crowd-control tactic designed to enforce curfew during the most volatile nights of the Ferguson protests.

The ACLU last month asked the judge to put a stop to the practice of forcing protesters to “keep moving” and not stand on sidewalks, a rule police began using Aug. 18 along West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson after the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer.

The injunction “is a huge win for peaceful protesters and those who believe in the rule of law,” Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU, said in a news release.

Perry’s injunction said the practice police adopted of forcing peaceful protesters to keep moving, which some activists called the “five-second rule,” violates citizens’ constitutional right of free speech.

"Citizens who wish to gather in the wake of Michael Brown’s tragic death have a constitutional right to do so, but they do not have the right to endanger lives of police officers or other citizens," Perry wrote. "The police must be able to perform their jobs, and nothing in this order restricts their ability to do that."

Perry wrote that the injunction does not prevent police “from using all lawful means to control crowds and protect against violence.”

She said the injunction does not limit state’s refusal-to-disperse law, which makes it a class C misdemeanor “if, being present at the scene of an unlawful assembly, or at the scene of a riot, (someone) knowingly fails or refuses to obey the lawful command of a law enforcement officer to depart from the scene of such unlawful assembly or riot.”

Defendants in the suit are St. Louis County and Ron Replogle, superindendent of the Missouir HIghway Patrol.

St. Louis County Chief Jon Belmar said during a hearing last month that it was a mistake to force protesters to keep moving during the daytime protests that were mostly calm compared to some nights along West Florissant  Avenue. Belmar said police facing riots and looting at night were instructed to keep people moving to prevent crime from erupting in stagnant groups of protesters as officers had seen in during early stages of the Ferguson protests.

Source: Joel Currier for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch

197 notes

It is chilling to learn that 7% of American Muslims say that acts of violence against civilian targets, such as bombings, are “sometimes justified” if the cause is right, and that an additional 1% say they are “often justified.” This represents tens of thousands of people, after all. Taken in isolation, such poll results have become fodder for a widespread belief that ordinary Muslims condone terrorist violence. But those numbers leave out the larger context. When the same question was asked of Americans in general, an astounding 24% said they believe that bomb attacks aimed at civilians are “often or sometimes justified” and 6% feel they are “completely justified.” In other words, American Muslims are between four and six times less likely than other Americans to endorse violent acts against civilians.
Doug Saunders, The Myth of the Muslim Tide (2012)

If you are paying attention at all to the media and those who write about current events, this quote - IMO - is highly relevant and a weapon against those who spew hatred against the Islamic community. This books main argument is no, Muslim immigration is NOT a threat to the West. Our hysteria now is akin to the hysteria over Roman Catholics immigration and Jewish immigration in the last century. Most Muslims acquire the views of the countries they immigrate to. Don’t be a bigot.

57 notes